Cargando…

An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control

The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gagneur, Justin D., Ezzell, Gary A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927
_version_ 1783283007558254592
author Gagneur, Justin D.
Ezzell, Gary A.
author_facet Gagneur, Justin D.
Ezzell, Gary A.
author_sort Gagneur, Justin D.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were [Formula: see text] , and [Formula: see text] from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA. PACS number: 87.55.Qr
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5711098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57110982018-04-02 An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control Gagneur, Justin D. Ezzell, Gary A. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were [Formula: see text] , and [Formula: see text] from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA. PACS number: 87.55.Qr John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5711098/ /pubmed/25207579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Gagneur, Justin D.
Ezzell, Gary A.
An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title_full An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title_fullStr An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title_full_unstemmed An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title_short An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
title_sort improvement in imrt qa results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927
work_keys_str_mv AT gagneurjustind animprovementinimrtqaresultsandbeammatchinginlinacsusingstatisticalprocesscontrol
AT ezzellgarya animprovementinimrtqaresultsandbeammatchinginlinacsusingstatisticalprocesscontrol
AT gagneurjustind improvementinimrtqaresultsandbeammatchinginlinacsusingstatisticalprocesscontrol
AT ezzellgarya improvementinimrtqaresultsandbeammatchinginlinacsusingstatisticalprocesscontrol