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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strand, Sarah, Boczkowski, Amanda, Smith, Blake, Snyder, Jeffrey E, Hyer, Daniel Ellis, Yaddanapudi, Sridhar, Dunkerley, David A. P., St‐Aubin, Joel
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