Unifying gamma passing rates in patient-specific QA for VMAT lung cancer treatment based on data assimilation.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Tomohiro Ono, Takanori Adachi, Hideaki Hirashima, Hiraku Iramina, Noriko Kishi, Yukinori Matsuo, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Takashi Mizowaki
{"title":"Unifying gamma passing rates in patient-specific QA for VMAT lung cancer treatment based on data assimilation.","authors":"Tomohiro Ono, Takanori Adachi, Hideaki Hirashima, Hiraku Iramina, Noriko Kishi, Yukinori Matsuo, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Takashi Mizowaki","doi":"10.1007/s13246-024-01448-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to identify systematic errors in measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on lung cancer and to standardize the gamma passing rate (GPR) by considering systematic errors during data assimilation. This study included 150 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT. VMAT plans were generated using a collapsed-cone algorithm. For measurement-based PSQA, ArcCHECK was employed. For calculation-based PSQA, Acuros XB was used to recalculate the plans. In prediction-based PSQA, GPR was forecasted using a previously developed GPR prediction model. The representative GPR value was estimated using the least-squares method from the three PSQA methods for each original plan. The unified GPR was computed by adjusting the original GPR to account for systematic errors. The range of limits of agreement (LoA) were assessed for the original and unified GPRs based on the representative GPR using Bland-Altman plots. For GPR (3%/2 mm), original GPRs were 94.4 ± 3.5%, 98.6 ± 2.2% and 93.3 ± 3.4% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods and the representative GPR was 95.5 ± 2.0%. Unified GPRs were 95.3 ± 2.8%, 95.4 ± 3.5% and 95.4 ± 3.1% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods, respectively. The range of LoA decreased from 12.8% for the original GPR to 9.5% for the unified GPR across all three PSQA methods. The study evaluated unified GPRs that corrected for systematic errors. Proposing unified criteria for PSQA can enhance safety regardless of the methods used.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-024-01448-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to identify systematic errors in measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on lung cancer and to standardize the gamma passing rate (GPR) by considering systematic errors during data assimilation. This study included 150 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT. VMAT plans were generated using a collapsed-cone algorithm. For measurement-based PSQA, ArcCHECK was employed. For calculation-based PSQA, Acuros XB was used to recalculate the plans. In prediction-based PSQA, GPR was forecasted using a previously developed GPR prediction model. The representative GPR value was estimated using the least-squares method from the three PSQA methods for each original plan. The unified GPR was computed by adjusting the original GPR to account for systematic errors. The range of limits of agreement (LoA) were assessed for the original and unified GPRs based on the representative GPR using Bland-Altman plots. For GPR (3%/2 mm), original GPRs were 94.4 ± 3.5%, 98.6 ± 2.2% and 93.3 ± 3.4% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods and the representative GPR was 95.5 ± 2.0%. Unified GPRs were 95.3 ± 2.8%, 95.4 ± 3.5% and 95.4 ± 3.1% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods, respectively. The range of LoA decreased from 12.8% for the original GPR to 9.5% for the unified GPR across all three PSQA methods. The study evaluated unified GPRs that corrected for systematic errors. Proposing unified criteria for PSQA can enhance safety regardless of the methods used.

Abstract Image

基于数据同化的 VMAT 肺癌治疗患者特定 QA 中伽马通过率的统一。
本研究旨在确定肺癌容积调制弧治疗(VMAT)中基于测量、计算和预测的患者特异性质量保证(PSQA)方法的系统误差,并通过考虑数据同化过程中的系统误差来标准化伽马通过率(GPR)。这项研究包括 150 名接受 VMAT 治疗的肺癌患者。VMAT 计划采用折叠锥算法生成。对于基于测量的 PSQA,采用了 ArcCHECK。在基于计算的 PSQA 中,使用 Acuros XB 对计划进行重新计算。在基于预测的 PSQA 中,使用先前开发的 GPR 预测模型预测 GPR。使用最小二乘法从三种 PSQA 方法中估算出每个原始平面图的代表性 GPR 值。通过调整原始 GPR 值以考虑系统误差,计算出统一的 GPR 值。根据具有代表性的 GPR,使用布兰-阿尔特曼图评估原始和统一 GPR 的一致性极限 (LoA) 范围。对于 GPR(3%/2 毫米),基于测量、计算和预测的 PSQA 方法的原始 GPR 分别为 94.4 ± 3.5%、98.6 ± 2.2% 和 93.3 ± 3.4%,而代表性 GPR 为 95.5 ± 2.0%。基于测量、计算和预测的 PSQA 方法的统一 GPR 分别为 95.3 ± 2.8%、95.4 ± 3.5% 和 95.4 ± 3.1%。在所有三种 PSQA 方法中,LoA 的范围从原始 GPR 的 12.8% 降至统一 GPR 的 9.5%。该研究评估了纠正系统误差的统一 GPR。无论使用哪种方法,为 PSQA 提出统一标准都能提高安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信