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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piffer, Stefano, Casati, Marta, Marrazzo, Livia, Arilli, Chiara, Calusi, Silvia, Desideri, Isacco, Fusi, Franco, Pallotta, Stefania, Talamonti, Cinzia
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