Cargando…

A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling

Dosimetric accuracy of a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan is directly related to the beam model, particularly with multileaf collimator characterization. Inappropriate dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value can lead to a suboptimal beam model, with significant failure in patient-specific qualit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xue, Jinyu, Wang, Hesheng, Barbee, David, Schmidt, Matthew, Das, Indra J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962688
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_144_17
_version_ 1783335337849782272
author Xue, Jinyu
Wang, Hesheng
Barbee, David
Schmidt, Matthew
Das, Indra J.
author_facet Xue, Jinyu
Wang, Hesheng
Barbee, David
Schmidt, Matthew
Das, Indra J.
author_sort Xue, Jinyu
collection PubMed
description Dosimetric accuracy of a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan is directly related to the beam model, particularly with multileaf collimator characterization. Inappropriate dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value can lead to a suboptimal beam model, with significant failure in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of VMAT plans. This study addressed the systematic issue of beam modeling and developed a practical method to determine the optimal DLG value for a beam model. Several complex VMAT plans were selected for the quality assurance analysis using the variable DLG values. The results of three-dimensional (3D) Gamma analysis as a function of the DLG at 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm criteria were fitted by a polynomial curve. The DLG value corresponding to the maximum Gamma passing rate for each polynomial fitting function was derived, and the average was calculated to be the optimal DLG value for each model. The 3D Gamma analysis was repeated with the optimal DLG value to verify the dosimetric accuracy of each VMAT case by PSQA. Gamma passing rates are seen to vary considerably with the DLG values and different analysis criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm) for each case. The optimal DLG derived for each model was 1.16 mm and 1.10 mm, much larger than the measured value (about 0.3 mm). The beam models with the optimal DLG was able to produce an average Gamma passing rate of 97.1% (range, 94.6%– 99.1%) at 3%/3 mm and 93.5% (range, 89.0%– 96.5%) at 2%/2 mm for one beam model, and 97.1% (range, 94.8%– 99.1%) at 3%/3 mm, and 93.3% (range, 88.8%– 96.7%) at 2%/2 mm for another. The overall accuracy of dose calculation for VMAT plans should be optimized with a compromise of varied modulation complexities in a beam model. We have developed a practical method to derive the optimal DLG value for each beam model based on the Gamma passing criterion. This technique should be applicable in general for all beam energies and patient cases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6020624
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60206242018-06-29 A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling Xue, Jinyu Wang, Hesheng Barbee, David Schmidt, Matthew Das, Indra J. J Med Phys Technical Note Dosimetric accuracy of a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan is directly related to the beam model, particularly with multileaf collimator characterization. Inappropriate dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value can lead to a suboptimal beam model, with significant failure in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of VMAT plans. This study addressed the systematic issue of beam modeling and developed a practical method to determine the optimal DLG value for a beam model. Several complex VMAT plans were selected for the quality assurance analysis using the variable DLG values. The results of three-dimensional (3D) Gamma analysis as a function of the DLG at 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm criteria were fitted by a polynomial curve. The DLG value corresponding to the maximum Gamma passing rate for each polynomial fitting function was derived, and the average was calculated to be the optimal DLG value for each model. The 3D Gamma analysis was repeated with the optimal DLG value to verify the dosimetric accuracy of each VMAT case by PSQA. Gamma passing rates are seen to vary considerably with the DLG values and different analysis criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm) for each case. The optimal DLG derived for each model was 1.16 mm and 1.10 mm, much larger than the measured value (about 0.3 mm). The beam models with the optimal DLG was able to produce an average Gamma passing rate of 97.1% (range, 94.6%– 99.1%) at 3%/3 mm and 93.5% (range, 89.0%– 96.5%) at 2%/2 mm for one beam model, and 97.1% (range, 94.8%– 99.1%) at 3%/3 mm, and 93.3% (range, 88.8%– 96.7%) at 2%/2 mm for another. The overall accuracy of dose calculation for VMAT plans should be optimized with a compromise of varied modulation complexities in a beam model. We have developed a practical method to derive the optimal DLG value for each beam model based on the Gamma passing criterion. This technique should be applicable in general for all beam energies and patient cases. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6020624/ /pubmed/29962688 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_144_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Medical Physics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Technical Note
Xue, Jinyu
Wang, Hesheng
Barbee, David
Schmidt, Matthew
Das, Indra J.
A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title_full A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title_fullStr A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title_full_unstemmed A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title_short A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling
title_sort practical method to optimize quality assurance results of arc therapy plans in beam modeling
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962688
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_144_17
work_keys_str_mv AT xuejinyu apracticalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT wanghesheng apracticalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT barbeedavid apracticalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT schmidtmatthew apracticalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT dasindraj apracticalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT xuejinyu practicalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT wanghesheng practicalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT barbeedavid practicalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT schmidtmatthew practicalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling
AT dasindraj practicalmethodtooptimizequalityassuranceresultsofarctherapyplansinbeammodeling