Cargando…

Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system

PURPOSE: Using intensity‐modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) with single isocenter for the treatment of multiple brain lesions has gained acceptance in recent years. One of the challenges of this technique is conducting a patient‐specific quality assurance (QA), involving accurate gamma passing rate (GPR)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salari, Elahheh, Parsai, E. Ishmael, Shvydka, Diana, Sperling, Nicholas Niven
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/PMC8803291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34792850
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13467
_version_ 1784642837766209536
author Salari, Elahheh
Parsai, E. Ishmael
Shvydka, Diana
Sperling, Nicholas Niven
author_facet Salari, Elahheh
Parsai, E. Ishmael
Shvydka, Diana
Sperling, Nicholas Niven
author_sort Salari, Elahheh
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Using intensity‐modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) with single isocenter for the treatment of multiple brain lesions has gained acceptance in recent years. One of the challenges of this technique is conducting a patient‐specific quality assurance (QA), involving accurate gamma passing rate (GPR) calculations for small and wide spread‐out targets. We evaluated effects of parameters such as dose grid and energy on GPR using our clinical IMRS plans. METHODS: Ten patients with total of 40 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created in Raystation (V.8A) treatment planning system (TPS) for the Varian Edge Linac using 6 and 10 flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams and planned dose grids of 1 mm and 2 mm resulting in four plans with 6–10 targets per patient. All parameters and objectives except dose grid and energy were kept the same in all plans. Next, patient‐specific QAs were measured evaluating GPR with 10% threshold, 3%/3 mm objective, and an acceptance criterion of 95%. Modulation factors (MF) and confidence intervals were calculated. Two modes of measurements, standard density (SD) and high density (HD), were used. RESULTS: Generally, plans computed with 1 mm dose grid have higher GPRs than those with 2 mm dose grid for both energies used. The GPRs of 6 FFF plans were higher than those of 10 FFF plans. GPR showed no noticeable difference between HD and SD measurements. Negative correlation between MF and GPR was observed. The HD pass rates fall within the confidence interval of SD. CONCLUSION: Calculated dose grid should be less than or equal to one‐third of distance to agreement, thus 1 mm planned dose grid is recommended to reduce artifacts in gamma calculation. GPR of SD and HD measurement modes is almost the same, which indicates that SD mode is clinically preferable for performing patient‐specific QAs. According to our results, using 6 FFF beams with 1 mm planned dose grid is more accurate and reliable for dose calculation of IMRS plans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8803291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88032912022-02-04 Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system Salari, Elahheh Parsai, E. Ishmael Shvydka, Diana Sperling, Nicholas Niven J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: Using intensity‐modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) with single isocenter for the treatment of multiple brain lesions has gained acceptance in recent years. One of the challenges of this technique is conducting a patient‐specific quality assurance (QA), involving accurate gamma passing rate (GPR) calculations for small and wide spread‐out targets. We evaluated effects of parameters such as dose grid and energy on GPR using our clinical IMRS plans. METHODS: Ten patients with total of 40 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created in Raystation (V.8A) treatment planning system (TPS) for the Varian Edge Linac using 6 and 10 flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams and planned dose grids of 1 mm and 2 mm resulting in four plans with 6–10 targets per patient. All parameters and objectives except dose grid and energy were kept the same in all plans. Next, patient‐specific QAs were measured evaluating GPR with 10% threshold, 3%/3 mm objective, and an acceptance criterion of 95%. Modulation factors (MF) and confidence intervals were calculated. Two modes of measurements, standard density (SD) and high density (HD), were used. RESULTS: Generally, plans computed with 1 mm dose grid have higher GPRs than those with 2 mm dose grid for both energies used. The GPRs of 6 FFF plans were higher than those of 10 FFF plans. GPR showed no noticeable difference between HD and SD measurements. Negative correlation between MF and GPR was observed. The HD pass rates fall within the confidence interval of SD. CONCLUSION: Calculated dose grid should be less than or equal to one‐third of distance to agreement, thus 1 mm planned dose grid is recommended to reduce artifacts in gamma calculation. GPR of SD and HD measurement modes is almost the same, which indicates that SD mode is clinically preferable for performing patient‐specific QAs. According to our results, using 6 FFF beams with 1 mm planned dose grid is more accurate and reliable for dose calculation of IMRS plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8803291/ /pubmed/34792850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13467 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The 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
Salari, Elahheh
Parsai, E. Ishmael
Shvydka, Diana
Sperling, Nicholas Niven
Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title_full Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title_fullStr Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title_short Evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific QAs for multiple brain lesions IMRS treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
title_sort evaluation of parameters affecting gamma passing rate in patient‐specific qas for multiple brain lesions imrs treatments using ray‐station treatment planning system
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8803291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34792850
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13467
work_keys_str_mv AT salarielahheh evaluationofparametersaffectinggammapassingrateinpatientspecificqasformultiplebrainlesionsimrstreatmentsusingraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT parsaieishmael evaluationofparametersaffectinggammapassingrateinpatientspecificqasformultiplebrainlesionsimrstreatmentsusingraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT shvydkadiana evaluationofparametersaffectinggammapassingrateinpatientspecificqasformultiplebrainlesionsimrstreatmentsusingraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT sperlingnicholasniven evaluationofparametersaffectinggammapassingrateinpatientspecificqasformultiplebrainlesionsimrstreatmentsusingraystationtreatmentplanningsystem