Accuracy of one algorithm used to modify a planned DVH with data from actual dose delivery.
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.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute; State University of New York at Buffalo. tianjunm@buffalo.edu.
Tianjun
T
Ma
Matthew B
MB
Podgorsak
Lalith K
LK
Kumaraswamy
D000465:Algorithms; D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D058958:Organs at Risk / Q000528:radiation effects; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012984:Software
Med Phys. 2012 Jan;39(1):81-6
22225277
Med Phys. 2013 Feb;40(2):021710
23387733
Med Phys. 2013 Nov;40(11):111715
24320423
Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):1037-44
21452741
Med Phys. 2012 Dec;39(12):7626-34
23231310
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Mar 06;15(2):4705
24710459
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):1043-1054
26429384
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Feb;13(1):57-67
23819494
Med Phys. 2012 Jul;39(7):4228-38
22830756
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Jul 08;14(4):4154
23835381
Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):6053-64
22047370
Med Phys. 2013 Nov;40(11):111722
24320430
Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2638-44
20632575
Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2516-24
20632563
Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):5359-73
19994544
Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031716
23464311
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
9608475
Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):5040-9
22894429
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Sep;112(3):389-95
25154319