将 MPC 增强型沙发作为 SRS/SBRT 预处理质量保证的可行性

Aime M Gloi
{"title":"将 MPC 增强型沙发作为 SRS/SBRT 预处理质量保证的可行性","authors":"Aime M Gloi","doi":"10.53430/ijsru.2023.6.2.0064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the Winston-Lutz (WL) interchangeability with a Machine Performance Check-enhanced couch for pretreatment quality assurance (QA) of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The study employed the MPC with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) to carry out geometric checks and verify the radiation isocenter. The isocenter size was assessed using the MultiMet cube and the MPC-enhanced couch module for SRS/SBRT pretreatment QA. Methods: The isocenter size of the MPC-enhanced couch module was compared to the WL measurements of the MultiMet cube. Measurements were taken at various gantry, collimator, and couch angles over a period of one month. The data from the cube were evaluated using PIPSRO and MultiMet (MMWL), including the offset targets. Various statistical tests were performed to evaluate the agreement, normality, separability, sensitivity, and specificity between the two methods. Results: The results showed isocenter sizes of 0.273 ± 0.065 mm, 0.293 ± 0.010 mm, and 0.209 ± 0.070 mm for PIPSPRO, MPC, and MMWL, respectively. The average bias was -0.0639 ± 0.1061 mm between MMWL and PIPSPRO, -0.0837 ± 0.0688 mm between MMWL and MPC, and 0.0198 ± 0.0696 mm between MPC and PIPSPRO. A Shapiro-Wilk test revealed no significant departure from normality for all tests and showed satisfactory discrimination through the area under the curve (AUC). A paired t-test analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean isocenter size of the MPC and WL (MMPWL: t = 5.654, df = 29, p < 0.001; PIPSPRO: t = -1.483, DF = 29, p = 0.1488), and there was no significant difference within the WL test (t = 3.008, DF = 29, p = 0.0054). Conclusion: Despite the statistical test results, there was agreement between the MPC and WL radiation isocenter size that was within the requirement of the AAPM TG 142 tolerance (±1.0 mm). The MPC proved to be accurate, reproducible, and consistent throughout the measurements, making it an appropriate and effective pretreatment QA tool for SRS/SBRT.","PeriodicalId":394579,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Scientific Research Updates","volume":"262 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of MPC enhanced couch as SRS/SBRT Pretreatment QA\",\"authors\":\"Aime M Gloi\",\"doi\":\"10.53430/ijsru.2023.6.2.0064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the Winston-Lutz (WL) interchangeability with a Machine Performance Check-enhanced couch for pretreatment quality assurance (QA) of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The study employed the MPC with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) to carry out geometric checks and verify the radiation isocenter. The isocenter size was assessed using the MultiMet cube and the MPC-enhanced couch module for SRS/SBRT pretreatment QA. Methods: The isocenter size of the MPC-enhanced couch module was compared to the WL measurements of the MultiMet cube. Measurements were taken at various gantry, collimator, and couch angles over a period of one month. The data from the cube were evaluated using PIPSRO and MultiMet (MMWL), including the offset targets. Various statistical tests were performed to evaluate the agreement, normality, separability, sensitivity, and specificity between the two methods. Results: The results showed isocenter sizes of 0.273 ± 0.065 mm, 0.293 ± 0.010 mm, and 0.209 ± 0.070 mm for PIPSPRO, MPC, and MMWL, respectively. The average bias was -0.0639 ± 0.1061 mm between MMWL and PIPSPRO, -0.0837 ± 0.0688 mm between MMWL and MPC, and 0.0198 ± 0.0696 mm between MPC and PIPSPRO. A Shapiro-Wilk test revealed no significant departure from normality for all tests and showed satisfactory discrimination through the area under the curve (AUC). A paired t-test analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean isocenter size of the MPC and WL (MMPWL: t = 5.654, df = 29, p < 0.001; PIPSPRO: t = -1.483, DF = 29, p = 0.1488), and there was no significant difference within the WL test (t = 3.008, DF = 29, p = 0.0054). Conclusion: Despite the statistical test results, there was agreement between the MPC and WL radiation isocenter size that was within the requirement of the AAPM TG 142 tolerance (±1.0 mm). The MPC proved to be accurate, reproducible, and consistent throughout the measurements, making it an appropriate and effective pretreatment QA tool for SRS/SBRT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Scientific Research Updates\",\"volume\":\"262 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Scientific Research Updates\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53430/ijsru.2023.6.2.0064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Scientific Research Updates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53430/ijsru.2023.6.2.0064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在探讨将温斯顿-鲁兹(WL)互换性与机器性能检查增强型床用于立体定向放射治疗(SRS)和立体定向体放射治疗(SBRT)预处理质量保证(QA)的可行性。该研究使用带有电子门成像装置(EPID)的 MPC 来进行几何检查和验证辐射等中心。使用MultiMet立方体和MPC增强沙发模块对SRS/SBRT预处理质量保证的等中心尺寸进行评估。方法:将 MPC 增强沙发模块的等中心尺寸与 MultiMet 立方体的 WL 测量值进行比较。在一个月的时间内,以不同的龙门架、准直器和坐榻角度进行了测量。使用 PIPSRO 和 MultiMet (MMWL) 评估了立方体的数据,包括偏移目标。对两种方法的一致性、正态性、可分离性、灵敏度和特异性进行了各种统计检验。结果显示结果显示,PIPSPRO、MPC 和 MMWL 的等中心尺寸分别为 0.273 ± 0.065 毫米、0.293 ± 0.010 毫米和 0.209 ± 0.070 毫米。MMWL 和 PIPSPRO 之间的平均偏差为 -0.0639 ± 0.1061 毫米,MMWL 和 MPC 之间的平均偏差为 -0.0837 ± 0.0688 毫米,MPC 和 PIPSPRO 之间的平均偏差为 0.0198 ± 0.0696 毫米。Shapiro-Wilk 检验表明,所有测试均未明显偏离正态性,曲线下面积 (AUC) 显示出令人满意的分辨力。配对 t 检验分析表明,MPC 和 WL 的平均等中心尺寸之间存在显著差异(MMPWL:t = 5.654,df = 29,p < 0.001;PIPSPRO:t = -1.483,DF = 29,p = 0.1488),而 WL 检验没有显著差异(t = 3.008,DF = 29,p = 0.0054)。结论尽管统计测试结果存在差异,但 MPC 和 WL 辐射等中心尺寸之间的一致性符合 AAPM TG 142 公差要求(±1.0 毫米)。事实证明,MPC 在整个测量过程中都是准确、可重复和一致的,是 SRS/SBRT 适当而有效的预处理质量保证工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feasibility of MPC enhanced couch as SRS/SBRT Pretreatment QA
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the Winston-Lutz (WL) interchangeability with a Machine Performance Check-enhanced couch for pretreatment quality assurance (QA) of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The study employed the MPC with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) to carry out geometric checks and verify the radiation isocenter. The isocenter size was assessed using the MultiMet cube and the MPC-enhanced couch module for SRS/SBRT pretreatment QA. Methods: The isocenter size of the MPC-enhanced couch module was compared to the WL measurements of the MultiMet cube. Measurements were taken at various gantry, collimator, and couch angles over a period of one month. The data from the cube were evaluated using PIPSRO and MultiMet (MMWL), including the offset targets. Various statistical tests were performed to evaluate the agreement, normality, separability, sensitivity, and specificity between the two methods. Results: The results showed isocenter sizes of 0.273 ± 0.065 mm, 0.293 ± 0.010 mm, and 0.209 ± 0.070 mm for PIPSPRO, MPC, and MMWL, respectively. The average bias was -0.0639 ± 0.1061 mm between MMWL and PIPSPRO, -0.0837 ± 0.0688 mm between MMWL and MPC, and 0.0198 ± 0.0696 mm between MPC and PIPSPRO. A Shapiro-Wilk test revealed no significant departure from normality for all tests and showed satisfactory discrimination through the area under the curve (AUC). A paired t-test analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean isocenter size of the MPC and WL (MMPWL: t = 5.654, df = 29, p < 0.001; PIPSPRO: t = -1.483, DF = 29, p = 0.1488), and there was no significant difference within the WL test (t = 3.008, DF = 29, p = 0.0054). Conclusion: Despite the statistical test results, there was agreement between the MPC and WL radiation isocenter size that was within the requirement of the AAPM TG 142 tolerance (±1.0 mm). The MPC proved to be accurate, reproducible, and consistent throughout the measurements, making it an appropriate and effective pretreatment QA tool for SRS/SBRT.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信