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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allred, Bryce C., Shan, Jie, Robertson, Daniel G., DeWees, Todd A., Shen, Jiajian, Liu, Wei, Stoker, Joshua B.
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