Cargando…

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gray, Alison, Bawazeer, Omemh, Arumugam, Sankar, Vial, Philip, Descallar, Joseph, Thwaites, David, Holloway, Lois
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Via Medica 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8575358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34760314
http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0093
_version_ 1784595664872669184
author Gray, Alison
Bawazeer, Omemh
Arumugam, Sankar
Vial, Philip
Descallar, Joseph
Thwaites, David
Holloway, Lois
author_facet Gray, Alison
Bawazeer, Omemh
Arumugam, Sankar
Vial, Philip
Descallar, Joseph
Thwaites, David
Holloway, Lois
author_sort Gray, Alison
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1–3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1–3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1–3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5–2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses). RESULTS: Generally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors. CONCLUSIONS: This work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8575358
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Via Medica
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85753582021-11-09 Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans Gray, Alison Bawazeer, Omemh Arumugam, Sankar Vial, Philip Descallar, Joseph Thwaites, David Holloway, Lois Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Research Paper BACKGROUND: There is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1–3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1–3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1–3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5–2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses). RESULTS: Generally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors. CONCLUSIONS: This work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors. Via Medica 2021-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8575358/ /pubmed/34760314 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0093 Text en © 2021 Greater Poland Cancer Centre https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially
spellingShingle Research Paper
Gray, Alison
Bawazeer, Omemh
Arumugam, Sankar
Vial, Philip
Descallar, Joseph
Thwaites, David
Holloway, Lois
Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title_full Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title_fullStr Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title_short Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans
title_sort evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot imrt plans
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8575358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34760314
http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0093
work_keys_str_mv AT grayalison evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT bawazeeromemh evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT arumugamsankar evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT vialphilip evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT descallarjoseph evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT thwaitesdavid evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans
AT hollowaylois evaluationoftheabilityofthreecommerciallyavailabledosimeterstodetectsystematicdeliveryerrorsinstepandshootimrtplans