Cargando…
A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions
PURPOSE: Patient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33780142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13226 |
_version_ | 1783676723829669888 |
---|---|
author | Allred, Bryce C. Shan, Jie Robertson, Daniel G. DeWees, Todd A. Shen, Jiajian Liu, Wei Stoker, Joshua B. |
author_facet | Allred, Bryce C. Shan, Jie Robertson, Daniel G. DeWees, Todd A. Shen, Jiajian Liu, Wei Stoker, Joshua B. |
author_sort | Allred, Bryce C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Patient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach that maintained all of the capabilities of the well‐established γ test, but that also provided a more intuitive error parameterization, was desired. METHODS: Analysis was performed for 300 dose planes compared by searching all calculated points within a fixed radius around each measured pixel to determine the dose deviation. Dose plane agreement is reported as the dose difference minimum (DDM) within an empirically established search radius: ΔDmin(r). This per‐pixel metric is aggregated into a histogram binned by dose deviation. Search‐radius criteria were based on a weighted‐beamlet 3σ spatial deviation from imaging isocenter. Equipment setup error was mitigated during analysis using tracked image registration, ensuring beamlet deviations to be the dominant source of spatial error. The percentage of comparison points with <3% dose difference determined pass rate. RESULTS: The mean beamlet radial deviation was 0.38mm from x‐ray isocenter, with a standard deviation of 0.19mm, such that 99.9% of relevant pencil beams were within 1 mm of nominal. The dose‐plane comparison data showed no change in passing rate between a 3%/1mm ΔDmin(r) analysis (97.6 +/‐ 3.6%) and a 3%/2mm γ test (97.7 +/‐ 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: PSQA dose‐comparison agreements corresponding to a search radius outside of machine performance limits are likely false positives. However, the elliptical shape of the γ test is too dose‐restrictive with a spatial‐error threshold set at 1 mm. This work introduces a cylindrical search shape, proposed herein as more relevant to plan quality, as part of the new DDM planar‐dose comparison algorithm. DDM accepts all pixels within a given dose threshold inside the search radius, and carries forward plan‐quality metrics in a straightforward manner for evaluation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8035555 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80355552021-04-15 A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions Allred, Bryce C. Shan, Jie Robertson, Daniel G. DeWees, Todd A. Shen, Jiajian Liu, Wei Stoker, Joshua B. J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes PURPOSE: Patient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach that maintained all of the capabilities of the well‐established γ test, but that also provided a more intuitive error parameterization, was desired. METHODS: Analysis was performed for 300 dose planes compared by searching all calculated points within a fixed radius around each measured pixel to determine the dose deviation. Dose plane agreement is reported as the dose difference minimum (DDM) within an empirically established search radius: ΔDmin(r). This per‐pixel metric is aggregated into a histogram binned by dose deviation. Search‐radius criteria were based on a weighted‐beamlet 3σ spatial deviation from imaging isocenter. Equipment setup error was mitigated during analysis using tracked image registration, ensuring beamlet deviations to be the dominant source of spatial error. The percentage of comparison points with <3% dose difference determined pass rate. RESULTS: The mean beamlet radial deviation was 0.38mm from x‐ray isocenter, with a standard deviation of 0.19mm, such that 99.9% of relevant pencil beams were within 1 mm of nominal. The dose‐plane comparison data showed no change in passing rate between a 3%/1mm ΔDmin(r) analysis (97.6 +/‐ 3.6%) and a 3%/2mm γ test (97.7 +/‐ 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: PSQA dose‐comparison agreements corresponding to a search radius outside of machine performance limits are likely false positives. However, the elliptical shape of the γ test is too dose‐restrictive with a spatial‐error threshold set at 1 mm. This work introduces a cylindrical search shape, proposed herein as more relevant to plan quality, as part of the new DDM planar‐dose comparison algorithm. DDM accepts all pixels within a given dose threshold inside the search radius, and carries forward plan‐quality metrics in a straightforward manner for evaluation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8035555/ /pubmed/33780142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13226 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Technical Notes Allred, Bryce C. Shan, Jie Robertson, Daniel G. DeWees, Todd A. Shen, Jiajian Liu, Wei Stoker, Joshua B. A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title | A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title_full | A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title_fullStr | A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title_full_unstemmed | A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title_short | A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
title_sort | method for quantitative evaluations of scanning‐proton dose distributions |
topic | Technical Notes |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33780142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13226 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT allredbrycec amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT shanjie amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT robertsondanielg amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT deweestodda amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT shenjiajian amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT liuwei amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT stokerjoshuab amethodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT allredbrycec methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT shanjie methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT robertsondanielg methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT deweestodda methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT shenjiajian methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT liuwei methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions AT stokerjoshuab methodforquantitativeevaluationsofscanningprotondosedistributions |