Accuracy of one algorithm used to modify a planned DVH with data from actual dose delivery.

Autor: Ma T; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; State University of New York at Buffalo. tianjunm@buffalo.edu., Podgorsak MB, Kumaraswamy LK
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of applied clinical medical physics [J Appl Clin Med Phys] 2016 Sep 08; Vol. 17 (5), pp. 273-282. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Sep 08.
DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6344
Abstrakt: Detection and accurate quantification of treatment delivery errors is important in radiation therapy. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of DVH based QA in quantifying delivery errors. Eighteen previously treated VMAT plans (prostate, H&N, and brain) were randomly chosen for this study. Conventional IMRT delivery QA was done with the ArcCHECK diode detector for error-free plans and plans with the following modifications: 1) induced monitor unit differences up to ± 3.0%, 2) control point deletion (3, 5, and 8 control points were deleted for each arc), and 3) gantry angle shift (2° uniform shift clockwise and counterclockwise). 2D and 3D distance-to-agreement (DTA) analyses were performed for all plans with SNC Patient software and 3DVH software, respectively. Subsequently, accuracy of the reconstructed DVH curves and DVH parameters in 3DVH software were analyzed for all selected cases using the plans in the Eclipse treatment planning system as standard. 3D DTA analysis for error-induced plans generally gave high pass rates, whereas the 2D evaluation seemed to be more sensitive to detecting delivery errors. The average differences for DVH parameters between each pair of Eclipse recalculation and 3DVH prediction were within 2% for all three types of error-induced treatment plans. This illustrates that 3DVH accurately quantifies delivery errors in terms of actual dose delivered to the patients. 2D DTA analysis should be routinely used for clinical evaluation. Any concerns or dose discrepancies should be further analyzed through DVH-based QA for clinically relevant results and confirmation of a conventional passing-rate-based QA.
(© 2016 The Authors.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: