» Articles » PMID: 34760314

Evaluation of the Ability of Three Commercially Available Dosimeters to Detect Systematic Delivery Errors in Step-and-shoot IMRT Plans

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2021 Nov 11
PMID 34760314
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: There is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans.

Materials And Methods: Four clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1-3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1-3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1-3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5-2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses).

Results: Generally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors.

Conclusions: This work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors.

Citing Articles

Application of error classification model using indices based on dose distribution for characteristics evaluation of multileaf collimator position errors.

Sheen H, Shin H, Kim H, Kim C, Kim J, Kim J Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):11027.

PMID: 37419940 PMC: 10328946. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-35570-1.


Comparison of pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry for advanced radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Bartnikowska A, Cieslik G, Mlodzik M, Garcia-Argibay M Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2022; 27(2):189-197.

PMID: 36299396 PMC: 9591023. DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0027.


Effect of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Position Error Determined by Picket Fence Test on Gamma Index Value in Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans.

Ceylan C, Yondem Inal S, Senol E, Yilmaz B, Sahin S Cureus. 2021; 13(1):e12684.

PMID: 33598374 PMC: 7880508. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12684.

References
1.
Gueorguiev G, Cotter C, Turcotte J, Crawford B, Sharp G, Mahd M . Clinical implementation and error sensitivity of a 3D quality assurance protocol for prostate and thoracic IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(5):179–192. PMC: 5690157. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5392. View

2.
Liang B, Liu B, Zhou F, Yin F, Wu Q . Comparisons of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) systems: sensitivity analysis to machine errors. Radiat Oncol. 2016; 11(1):146. PMC: 5100111. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0725-4. View

3.
Coleman L, Skourou C . Sensitivity of volumetric modulated arc therapy patient specific QA results to multileaf collimator errors and correlation to dose volume histogram based metrics. Med Phys. 2013; 40(11):111715. DOI: 10.1118/1.4824433. View

4.
Gay S, Netherton T, Cardenas C, Ger R, Balter P, Dong L . Dosimetric impact and detectability of multi-leaf collimator positioning errors on Varian Halcyon. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(8):47-55. PMC: 6698762. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12677. View

5.
Masi L, Casamassima F, Doro R, Francescon P . Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems. Med Phys. 2011; 38(2):612-21. DOI: 10.1118/1.3533900. View