2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background & purpose:

          To evaluate treatment planning system (TPS) beam modeling parameters as contributing factors to IMRT audit performance.

          Materials & methods:

          We retrospectively analyzed IROC Houston phantom audit performance and concurrent beam modeling survey responses from 337 irradiations performed between August 2017 and November 2019. Irradiation results were grouped based on the reporting of typical or atypical beam modeling parameter survey responses (<10th or >90th percentile values), and compared for passing versus failing (>7% error) or “poor” (>5% error) irradiation status. Additionally, we assessed the impact on the planned dose distribution from variations in modeling parameter value. Finally, we estimated the overall impact of beam modeling parameter variance on dose calculations, based on reported community variations.

          Results:

          Use of atypical modeling parameters were more frequently seen with failing phantom audit results ( p = 0.01). Most pronounced was for Eclipse AAA users, where phantom irradiations with atypical values of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) showed a greater incidence of both poor-performing ( p = 0.048) and failing phantom audits ( p = 0.014); and in general, DLG value was correlated with dose calculation accuracy ( r = 0.397, p < 0.001). Manipulating TPS parameters induced systematic changes in planned dose distributions which were consistent with prior observations of how failures manifest. Dose change estimations based on these dose calculations agreed well with true dosimetric errors identified.

          Conclusion:

          Atypical TPS beam modeling parameters are associated with failing phantom audits. This is identified as an important factor contributing to the observed failing phantom results, and highlights the need for accurate beam modeling.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02.

          To report the impact of radiotherapy quality on outcome in a large international phase III trial evaluating radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus tirapazamine for advanced head and neck cancer. The protocol required interventional review of radiotherapy plans by the Quality Assurance Review Center (QARC). All plans and radiotherapy documentation underwent post-treatment review by the Trial Management Committee (TMC) for protocol compliance. Secondary review of noncompliant plans for predicted impact on tumor control was performed. Factors associated with poor protocol compliance were studied, and outcome data were analyzed in relation to protocol compliance and radiotherapy quality. At TMC review, 25.4% of the patients had noncompliant plans but none in which QARC-recommended changes had been made. At secondary review, 47% of noncompliant plans (12% overall) had deficiencies with a predicted major adverse impact on tumor control. Major deficiencies were unrelated to tumor subsite or to T or N stage (if N+), but were highly correlated with number of patients enrolled at the treatment center ( or = 20 patients, 5.4%; P < .001). In patients who received at least 60 Gy, those with major deficiencies in their treatment plans (n = 87) had a markedly inferior outcome compared with those whose treatment was initially protocol compliant (n = 502): -2 years overall survival, 50% v 70%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.99; P < .001; and 2 years freedom from locoregional failure, 54% v 78%; HR, 2.37; P < .001, respectively. These results demonstrate the critical importance of radiotherapy quality on outcome of chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Centers treating only a few patients are the major source of quality problems.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.

            The purpose of this work is to determine the statistical correlation between per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates and several clinically relevant, anatomy-based dose errors for per-patient IMRT QA. The intent is to assess the predictive power of a common conventional IMRT QA performance metric, the Gamma passing rate per beam. Ninety-six unique data sets were created by inducing four types of dose errors in 24 clinical head and neck IMRT plans, each planned with 6 MV Varian 120-leaf MLC linear accelerators using a commercial treatment planning system and step-and-shoot delivery. The error-free beams/plans were used as "simulated measurements" (for generating the IMRT QA dose planes and the anatomy dose metrics) to compare to the corresponding data calculated by the error-induced plans. The degree of the induced errors was tuned to mimic IMRT QA passing rates that are commonly achieved using conventional methods. Analysis of clinical metrics (parotid mean doses, spinal cord max and D1cc, CTV D95, and larynx mean) vs. IMRT QA Gamma analysis (3%/3 mm, 2/2, 1/1) showed that in all cases, there were only weak to moderate correlations (range of Pearson's r-values: -0.295 to 0.653). Moreover, the moderate correlations actually had positive Pearson's r-values (i.e., clinically relevant metric differences increased with increasing IMRT QA passing rate), indicating that some of the largest anatomy-based dose differences occurred in the cases of high IMRT QA passing rates, which may be called "false negatives." The results also show numerous instances of false positives or cases where low IMRT QA passing rates do not imply large errors in anatomy dose metrics. In none of the cases was there correlation consistent with high predictive power of planar IMRT passing rates, i.e., in none of the cases did high IMRT QA Gamma passing rates predict low errors in anatomy dose metrics or vice versa. There is a lack of correlation between conventional IMRT QA performance metrics (Gamma passing rates) and dose errors in anatomic regions-of-interest. The most common acceptance criteria and published actions levels therefore have insufficient, or at least unproven, predictive power for per-patient IMRT QA.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels.

              This study (1) examines a variety of real-world cases where systematic errors were not detected by widely accepted methods for IMRT/VMAT dosimetric accuracy evaluation, and (2) drills-down to identify failure modes and their corresponding means for detection, diagnosis, and mitigation. The primary goal of detailing these case studies is to explore different, more sensitive methods and metrics that could be used more effectively for evaluating accuracy of dose algorithms, delivery systems, and QA devices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                8407192
                6944
                Radiother Oncol
                Radiother Oncol
                Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
                0167-8140
                1879-0887
                7 November 2021
                January 2022
                05 November 2021
                23 February 2022
                : 166
                : 8-14
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle;
                [b ]Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center;
                [c ]The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences;
                [d ]Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 607, Houston, TX 77030, United States. sfkry@ 123456mdanderson.org (S.F. Kry).
                Article
                NIHMS1754324
                10.1016/j.radonc.2021.10.021
                8863621
                34748857
                1abba491-ec2b-44c1-9514-57c3d5e96148

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                phantoms,dosimetry audit,treatment planning system,beam modeling
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                phantoms, dosimetry audit, treatment planning system, beam modeling

                Comments

                Comment on this article