Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods
Open Access
- 6 June 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
- Vol. 18 (4), 172-179
- https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12114
Abstract
A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4®, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Gamma-index method sensitivity for gauging plan delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapyPhysica Medica, 2015
- A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapyReports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy, 2015
- The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRTRadiation Oncology, 2014
- Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: Practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levelsMedical Physics, 2013
- ROC analysis in patient specific quality assuranceMedical Physics, 2013
- Pretreatment patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance: A correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogramMedical Physics, 2012
- Technological Advancements and Error Rates in Radiation Therapy DeliveryInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2011
- Per‐beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errorsMedical Physics, 2011
- A Method for Evaluating Quality Assurance Needs in Radiation TherapyInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2008
- A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributionsMedical Physics, 1998