Cargando…

Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stambaugh, Cassandra, Gagneur, Justin, Uejo, Arielle, Clouser, Edward, Ezzell, Gary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30599085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12524
_version_ 1783387506365956096
author Stambaugh, Cassandra
Gagneur, Justin
Uejo, Arielle
Clouser, Edward
Ezzell, Gary
author_facet Stambaugh, Cassandra
Gagneur, Justin
Uejo, Arielle
Clouser, Edward
Ezzell, Gary
author_sort Stambaugh, Cassandra
collection PubMed
description Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6333129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63331292019-01-23 Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances Stambaugh, Cassandra Gagneur, Justin Uejo, Arielle Clouser, Edward Ezzell, Gary J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6333129/ /pubmed/30599085 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12524 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Stambaugh, Cassandra
Gagneur, Justin
Uejo, Arielle
Clouser, Edward
Ezzell, Gary
Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title_full Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title_fullStr Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title_full_unstemmed Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title_short Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances
title_sort improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening imrt qa tolerances
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30599085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12524
work_keys_str_mv AT stambaughcassandra improvementsintreatmentplanningcalculationsmotivatedbytighteningimrtqatolerances
AT gagneurjustin improvementsintreatmentplanningcalculationsmotivatedbytighteningimrtqatolerances
AT uejoarielle improvementsintreatmentplanningcalculationsmotivatedbytighteningimrtqatolerances
AT clouseredward improvementsintreatmentplanningcalculationsmotivatedbytighteningimrtqatolerances
AT ezzellgary improvementsintreatmentplanningcalculationsmotivatedbytighteningimrtqatolerances