Error detection sensitivity and operational efficiency of phantom-based and phantom-less patient-specific quality assurance in proton therapy.

IF 4.2
Lukas Cornelius Wolter, Yazeed Ghannam, Kenneth Poels, Stefan Menkel, Fabian Hennings, Kevin Souris, Theresa Lenk, Kristin Stützer, Christian Richter
{"title":"Error detection sensitivity and operational efficiency of phantom-based and phantom-less patient-specific quality assurance in proton therapy.","authors":"Lukas Cornelius Wolter, Yazeed Ghannam, Kenneth Poels, Stefan Menkel, Fabian Hennings, Kevin Souris, Theresa Lenk, Kristin Stützer, Christian Richter","doi":"10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.04.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>In proton therapy (PT), patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is an important component of the measures which ensure accurate and safe treatment delivery. Traditional phantom-based PSQA is resource-intensive and may miss clinically relevant data transfer and delivery errors. This study compared the sensitivity and operational effort of established phantom-based methods versus an automated, phantom-less alternative based on the increasingly utilized log file-based approach.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We evaluated phantom-based (specifically including dose measurements & manual physics checks) and phantom-less (specifically based on log file-based QA & automated physics checks) PSQA workflows. Twenty-nine artificial error scenarios were introduced to a clinically delivered head-and-neck plan. Error detection sensitivity was determined via the percentage of scenarios detected by each workflow. Operational effort was quantified by counting mouse clicks and manual parameter entries in clinical systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phantom-less PSQA detected 90% of simulated errors, outperforming phantom-based PSQA detecting only 52% at clinically realistic measurement conditions. Specifically, log file-based QA alone detected 83% of scenarios versus 10% detected by phantom-based measurements. Manual and automated plan parameter checks showed an equal sensitivity, detecting 48% of scenarios. The more automated, phantom-less alternative could reduce operational effort by at least one third of the currently required mouse clicks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Phantom-less PSQA based on log file-based QA and automated physics checks provided higher error detection sensitivity and significantly reduced manual operational effort compared to conventional phantom-based and manual methods. These findings support its integration into clinical practice, a key objective of many PT centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":101315,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2026.04.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: In proton therapy (PT), patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is an important component of the measures which ensure accurate and safe treatment delivery. Traditional phantom-based PSQA is resource-intensive and may miss clinically relevant data transfer and delivery errors. This study compared the sensitivity and operational effort of established phantom-based methods versus an automated, phantom-less alternative based on the increasingly utilized log file-based approach.

Materials and methods: We evaluated phantom-based (specifically including dose measurements & manual physics checks) and phantom-less (specifically based on log file-based QA & automated physics checks) PSQA workflows. Twenty-nine artificial error scenarios were introduced to a clinically delivered head-and-neck plan. Error detection sensitivity was determined via the percentage of scenarios detected by each workflow. Operational effort was quantified by counting mouse clicks and manual parameter entries in clinical systems.

Results: Phantom-less PSQA detected 90% of simulated errors, outperforming phantom-based PSQA detecting only 52% at clinically realistic measurement conditions. Specifically, log file-based QA alone detected 83% of scenarios versus 10% detected by phantom-based measurements. Manual and automated plan parameter checks showed an equal sensitivity, detecting 48% of scenarios. The more automated, phantom-less alternative could reduce operational effort by at least one third of the currently required mouse clicks.

Conclusions: Phantom-less PSQA based on log file-based QA and automated physics checks provided higher error detection sensitivity and significantly reduced manual operational effort compared to conventional phantom-based and manual methods. These findings support its integration into clinical practice, a key objective of many PT centers.

质子治疗中基于幻像和无幻像患者特异性质量保证的错误检测灵敏度和操作效率。
背景和目的:在质子治疗(PT)中,患者特异性质量保证(PSQA)是确保准确和安全的治疗递送措施的重要组成部分。传统的基于幻影的PSQA是资源密集型的,可能会遗漏临床相关的数据传输和传递错误。本研究比较了已建立的基于幽灵的方法与基于越来越多使用的基于日志文件的无幽灵的自动化替代方法的灵敏度和操作工作量。材料和方法:我们评估了基于幽灵的(特别是包括剂量测量和手动物理检查)和无幽灵的(特别是基于日志文件的QA和自动物理检查)PSQA工作流程。将29种人为错误情景引入临床交付的头颈部计划。通过每个工作流检测到的场景百分比来确定错误检测灵敏度。通过计算临床系统中的鼠标点击次数和手动参数条目来量化操作工作量。结果:无幻像PSQA检测出90%的模拟误差,在临床实际测量条件下,基于幻像的PSQA仅检测出52%。具体来说,基于日志文件的QA单独检测到83%的场景,而基于幻象的测量检测到10%的场景。手动和自动计划参数检查显示出相同的灵敏度,检测到48%的场景。更自动化、更少幻影的替代方案可以将操作工作量减少至少三分之一,而目前所需的鼠标点击次数是最少的。结论:与传统的基于幽灵和手动方法相比,基于日志文件的QA和自动物理检查的无幽灵PSQA提供了更高的错误检测灵敏度,并显着减少了手动操作的工作量。这些发现支持将其整合到临床实践中,这是许多PT中心的一个关键目标。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书