Cargando…
Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology
The Elekta Unity MR‐linac utilizes daily magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for online plan adaptation. In the Unity workflow, adapt to position (ATP) and adapt to shape (ATS) treatment planning options are available which represent a virtual shift or full re‐plan with contour adjustments respectively...
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/PMC8035570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33756059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13219 |
_version_ | 1783676727102275584 |
---|---|
author | Strand, Sarah Boczkowski, Amanda Smith, Blake Snyder, Jeffrey E Hyer, Daniel Ellis Yaddanapudi, Sridhar Dunkerley, David A. P. St‐Aubin, Joel |
author_facet | Strand, Sarah Boczkowski, Amanda Smith, Blake Snyder, Jeffrey E Hyer, Daniel Ellis Yaddanapudi, Sridhar Dunkerley, David A. P. St‐Aubin, Joel |
author_sort | Strand, Sarah |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Elekta Unity MR‐linac utilizes daily magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for online plan adaptation. In the Unity workflow, adapt to position (ATP) and adapt to shape (ATS) treatment planning options are available which represent a virtual shift or full re‐plan with contour adjustments respectively. Both techniques generate a new intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan while the patient lies on the treatment table and thus adapted plans cannot be measured prior to treatment delivery. A statistical process control methodology was used to analyze 512 patient‐specific IMRT QA measurements performed on the MR‐compatible SunNuclear ArcCheck with a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm using global normalization and a 10% low dose threshold. The lower control limit (LCL) was determined from 68 IMRT reference plan measurements, and a one‐sided process capability ratio [Formula: see text] was used to assess the pass rates from 432 measured ATP and 80 measured ATS plans. Further analysis was performed to assess differences between SBRT or conventional fractionation pass rates and to determine whether there was any correlation between the pass rates and plan complexity. The LCL of the reference plans was determined to be a gamma pass rate of 0.958, and the [Formula: see text] of the measured ATP plans and measured ATS plans were determined to be 1.403 and 0.940 for ATP and ATS plans, respectively, while a [Formula: see text] of 0.902 and 1.383 was found for SBRT and conventional fractionations respectively. For plan complexity, no correlation was found between modulation degree and gamma pass rate, but a statistically significant correlation was observed between the beam‐averaged aperture area and gamma pass rate. All adaptive plans passed the TG‐218 guidelines, but the ATS and SBRT plans tended to have a smaller beam‐averaged aperture area with slightly lower gamma pass rates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8035570 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80355702021-04-15 Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology Strand, Sarah Boczkowski, Amanda Smith, Blake Snyder, Jeffrey E Hyer, Daniel Ellis Yaddanapudi, Sridhar Dunkerley, David A. P. St‐Aubin, Joel J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The Elekta Unity MR‐linac utilizes daily magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for online plan adaptation. In the Unity workflow, adapt to position (ATP) and adapt to shape (ATS) treatment planning options are available which represent a virtual shift or full re‐plan with contour adjustments respectively. Both techniques generate a new intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan while the patient lies on the treatment table and thus adapted plans cannot be measured prior to treatment delivery. A statistical process control methodology was used to analyze 512 patient‐specific IMRT QA measurements performed on the MR‐compatible SunNuclear ArcCheck with a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm using global normalization and a 10% low dose threshold. The lower control limit (LCL) was determined from 68 IMRT reference plan measurements, and a one‐sided process capability ratio [Formula: see text] was used to assess the pass rates from 432 measured ATP and 80 measured ATS plans. Further analysis was performed to assess differences between SBRT or conventional fractionation pass rates and to determine whether there was any correlation between the pass rates and plan complexity. The LCL of the reference plans was determined to be a gamma pass rate of 0.958, and the [Formula: see text] of the measured ATP plans and measured ATS plans were determined to be 1.403 and 0.940 for ATP and ATS plans, respectively, while a [Formula: see text] of 0.902 and 1.383 was found for SBRT and conventional fractionations respectively. For plan complexity, no correlation was found between modulation degree and gamma pass rate, but a statistically significant correlation was observed between the beam‐averaged aperture area and gamma pass rate. All adaptive plans passed the TG‐218 guidelines, but the ATS and SBRT plans tended to have a smaller beam‐averaged aperture area with slightly lower gamma pass rates. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8035570/ /pubmed/33756059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13219 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 | Radiation Oncology Physics Strand, Sarah Boczkowski, Amanda Smith, Blake Snyder, Jeffrey E Hyer, Daniel Ellis Yaddanapudi, Sridhar Dunkerley, David A. P. St‐Aubin, Joel Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title | Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title_full | Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title_fullStr | Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title_short | Analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for Elekta Unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
title_sort | analysis of patient‐specific quality assurance for elekta unity adaptive plans using statistical process control methodology |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035570/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33756059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13219 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT strandsarah analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT boczkowskiamanda analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT smithblake analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT snyderjeffreye analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT hyerdanielellis analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT yaddanapudisridhar analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT dunkerleydavidap analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology AT staubinjoel analysisofpatientspecificqualityassuranceforelektaunityadaptiveplansusingstatisticalprocesscontrolmethodology |