Xiaodong Zhao, Markus Baur, Phillip D H Wall, Eric Laugeman
{"title":"Tuning a secondary dose verification software for a CT-guided online adaptive delivery system.","authors":"Xiaodong Zhao, Markus Baur, Phillip D H Wall, Eric Laugeman","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from -2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were -0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e14563"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Quality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated.
Purpose: Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.
Methods: A total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from -2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.
Results: The optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were -0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.
Conclusion: DLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
