计划复杂性对基于计算和测量的滑动窗口调强放射治疗预处理验证的影响

Shi Li , Huanli Luo , Xia Tan, Tao Qiu, Xin Yang, Bin Feng, Liyuan Chen, Ying Wang, Fu Jin
{"title":"计划复杂性对基于计算和测量的滑动窗口调强放射治疗预处理验证的影响","authors":"Shi Li ,&nbsp;Huanli Luo ,&nbsp;Xia Tan,&nbsp;Tao Qiu,&nbsp;Xin Yang,&nbsp;Bin Feng,&nbsp;Liyuan Chen,&nbsp;Ying Wang,&nbsp;Fu Jin","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>In sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy, increased plan modulation often leads to increased plan complexities and dose uncertainties. Dose calculation and/or measurement checks are usually adopted for pre-treatment verification. This study aims to evaluate the relationship among plan complexities, calculated doses and measured doses.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A total of 53 plan complexity metrics (PCMs) were selected, emphasizing small field characteristics and leaf speed/acceleration. Doses were retrieved from two beam-matched treatment devices. The intended dose was computed employing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and validated through Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithms. To measure the delivered dose, 3D diode arrays of various geometries, encompassing helical, cross, and oblique cross shapes, were utilized. Their interrelation was assessed via Spearman correlation analysis and principal component linear regression (PCR).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The correlation coefficients between calculation-based (CQA) and measurement-based verification quality assurance (MQA) were below 0.53. Most PCMs showed higher correlation <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> with CQA (max: 0.84) than MQA (max: 0.65). The proportion of <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> ≥ 0.5 was the largest in the pelvis compared to head-and-neck and chest-and-abdomen, and the highest <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> occurred at 1 %/1mm. Some modulation indices for the MLC speed and acceleration were significantly correlated with CQA and MQA. PCR’s determination coefficients (<em>R<sup>2</sup></em>) indicated PCMs had higher accuracy in predicting CQA (max: 0.75) than MQA (max: 0.42).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CQA and MQA demonstrated a weak correlation. Compared to MQA, CQA exhibited a stronger correlation with PCMs. Certain PCMs related to MLC movement effectively indicated variations in both quality assurances.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"31 ","pages":"Article 100622"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000927/pdfft?md5=054c998db82efb2545d759cf52f9e86a&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000927-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of plan complexity on calculation and measurement-based pre-treatment verifications for sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy\",\"authors\":\"Shi Li ,&nbsp;Huanli Luo ,&nbsp;Xia Tan,&nbsp;Tao Qiu,&nbsp;Xin Yang,&nbsp;Bin Feng,&nbsp;Liyuan Chen,&nbsp;Ying Wang,&nbsp;Fu Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2024.100622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and purpose</h3><p>In sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy, increased plan modulation often leads to increased plan complexities and dose uncertainties. Dose calculation and/or measurement checks are usually adopted for pre-treatment verification. This study aims to evaluate the relationship among plan complexities, calculated doses and measured doses.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A total of 53 plan complexity metrics (PCMs) were selected, emphasizing small field characteristics and leaf speed/acceleration. Doses were retrieved from two beam-matched treatment devices. The intended dose was computed employing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and validated through Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithms. To measure the delivered dose, 3D diode arrays of various geometries, encompassing helical, cross, and oblique cross shapes, were utilized. Their interrelation was assessed via Spearman correlation analysis and principal component linear regression (PCR).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The correlation coefficients between calculation-based (CQA) and measurement-based verification quality assurance (MQA) were below 0.53. Most PCMs showed higher correlation <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> with CQA (max: 0.84) than MQA (max: 0.65). The proportion of <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> ≥ 0.5 was the largest in the pelvis compared to head-and-neck and chest-and-abdomen, and the highest <em>r<sub>pcm-QA</sub></em> occurred at 1 %/1mm. Some modulation indices for the MLC speed and acceleration were significantly correlated with CQA and MQA. PCR’s determination coefficients (<em>R<sup>2</sup></em>) indicated PCMs had higher accuracy in predicting CQA (max: 0.75) than MQA (max: 0.42).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CQA and MQA demonstrated a weak correlation. Compared to MQA, CQA exhibited a stronger correlation with PCMs. Certain PCMs related to MLC movement effectively indicated variations in both quality assurances.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"31 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100622\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000927/pdfft?md5=054c998db82efb2545d759cf52f9e86a&pid=1-s2.0-S2405631624000927-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000927\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631624000927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的在滑动窗口调强放射治疗中,计划调制的增加往往会导致计划复杂性和剂量不确定性的增加。通常采用剂量计算和/或测量检查进行治疗前验证。本研究旨在评估计划复杂性、计算剂量和测量剂量之间的关系。材料和方法共选择了 53 个计划复杂性指标(PCM),强调小场特征和叶速/加速度。剂量从两个光束匹配的治疗设备中提取。采用各向异性分析算法计算预期剂量,并通过蒙特卡罗(MC)和塌缩锥形卷积(CCC)算法进行验证。为了测量投射剂量,使用了不同几何形状的三维二极管阵列,包括螺旋形、十字形和斜十字形。结果基于计算的质量保证(CQA)和基于测量的质量保证(MQA)之间的相关系数低于 0.53。大多数 PCM 与 CQA 的 rpcm-QA 相关性(最大值:0.84)高于 MQA(最大值:0.65)。与头颈部和胸腹部相比,骨盆中 rpcm-QA ≥ 0.5 的比例最大,rpcm-QA 最高为 1%/1mm。MLC 速度和加速度的一些调制指数与 CQA 和 MQA 显著相关。PCR 的决定系数 (R2) 表明,PCM 预测 CQA 的准确性(最高:0.75)高于 MQA(最高:0.42)。与 MQA 相比,CQA 与 PCM 的相关性更强。某些与 MLC 移动相关的 PCM 有效地表明了两种质量保证的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The impact of plan complexity on calculation and measurement-based pre-treatment verifications for sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Background and purpose

In sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy, increased plan modulation often leads to increased plan complexities and dose uncertainties. Dose calculation and/or measurement checks are usually adopted for pre-treatment verification. This study aims to evaluate the relationship among plan complexities, calculated doses and measured doses.

Materials and methods

A total of 53 plan complexity metrics (PCMs) were selected, emphasizing small field characteristics and leaf speed/acceleration. Doses were retrieved from two beam-matched treatment devices. The intended dose was computed employing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and validated through Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithms. To measure the delivered dose, 3D diode arrays of various geometries, encompassing helical, cross, and oblique cross shapes, were utilized. Their interrelation was assessed via Spearman correlation analysis and principal component linear regression (PCR).

Results

The correlation coefficients between calculation-based (CQA) and measurement-based verification quality assurance (MQA) were below 0.53. Most PCMs showed higher correlation rpcm-QA with CQA (max: 0.84) than MQA (max: 0.65). The proportion of rpcm-QA ≥ 0.5 was the largest in the pelvis compared to head-and-neck and chest-and-abdomen, and the highest rpcm-QA occurred at 1 %/1mm. Some modulation indices for the MLC speed and acceleration were significantly correlated with CQA and MQA. PCR’s determination coefficients (R2) indicated PCMs had higher accuracy in predicting CQA (max: 0.75) than MQA (max: 0.42).

Conclusions

CQA and MQA demonstrated a weak correlation. Compared to MQA, CQA exhibited a stronger correlation with PCMs. Certain PCMs related to MLC movement effectively indicated variations in both quality assurances.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
18.90%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Results of 2023 survey on the use of synthetic computed tomography for magnetic resonance Imaging-only radiotherapy: Current status and future steps Head and neck automatic multi-organ segmentation on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Automatic segmentation for magnetic resonance imaging guided individual elective lymph node irradiation in head and neck cancer patients Development of a novel 3D-printed dynamic anthropomorphic thorax phantom for evaluation of four-dimensional computed tomography Technical feasibility of delivering a simultaneous integrated boost in partial breast irradiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1