Cargando…
Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT
PURPOSE: Patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time‐consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work...
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/PMC8035572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33735491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13209 |
_version_ | 1783676727554211840 |
---|---|
author | Piffer, Stefano Casati, Marta Marrazzo, Livia Arilli, Chiara Calusi, Silvia Desideri, Isacco Fusi, Franco Pallotta, Stefania Talamonti, Cinzia |
author_facet | Piffer, Stefano Casati, Marta Marrazzo, Livia Arilli, Chiara Calusi, Silvia Desideri, Isacco Fusi, Franco Pallotta, Stefania Talamonti, Cinzia |
author_sort | Piffer, Stefano |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time‐consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC‐based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well‐established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle(3)) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements. METHODS: Fifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%–2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans. RESULTS: TPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and −0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical [Formula: see text] clinical tolerance threshold. CONCLUSION: This work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC‐based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC‐based secondary patient‐specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per‐plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8035572 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80355722021-04-15 Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT Piffer, Stefano Casati, Marta Marrazzo, Livia Arilli, Chiara Calusi, Silvia Desideri, Isacco Fusi, Franco Pallotta, Stefania Talamonti, Cinzia J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time‐consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC‐based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well‐established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle(3)) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements. METHODS: Fifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%–2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans. RESULTS: TPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and −0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical [Formula: see text] clinical tolerance threshold. CONCLUSION: This work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC‐based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC‐based secondary patient‐specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per‐plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8035572/ /pubmed/33735491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13209 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 Piffer, Stefano Casati, Marta Marrazzo, Livia Arilli, Chiara Calusi, Silvia Desideri, Isacco Fusi, Franco Pallotta, Stefania Talamonti, Cinzia Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title | Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title_full | Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title_fullStr | Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title_short | Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT |
title_sort | validation of a secondary dose check tool against monte carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in vmat |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33735491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13209 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pifferstefano validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT casatimarta validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT marrazzolivia validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT arillichiara validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT calusisilvia validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT desideriisacco validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT fusifranco validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT pallottastefania validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat AT talamonticinzia validationofasecondarydosechecktoolagainstmontecarloandanalyticalclinicaldosecalculationalgorithmsinvmat |