Xiaodong Zhao, Markus Baur, Phillip D. H. Wall, Eric Laugeman
{"title":"为ct引导的在线自适应给药系统调整二次剂量验证软件。","authors":"Xiaodong Zhao, Markus Baur, Phillip D. H. Wall, Eric Laugeman","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Quality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from –2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were –0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>DLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14563","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tuning a secondary dose verification software for a CT-guided online adaptive delivery system\",\"authors\":\"Xiaodong Zhao, Markus Baur, Phillip D. H. Wall, Eric Laugeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Quality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from –2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were –0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>DLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14563\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14563\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：ct引导的在线适应性放疗（CTgART）平台（Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto， CA）的质量保证（QA）仍未标准化，因为它们在临床上越来越普遍。二次剂量计算软件（Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto， CA）为这个封闭的CTgART系统提供。然而，调整剂量学叶间隙（DLG）校正值对CTgART二次剂量计算的特定递送技术的临床影响仍未得到研究。目的：调整自适应在线QA中独立二次剂量验证软件不同给药技术的DLG校正值。方法：选取31个体积弧线治疗方案（VMAT）和13个固定门调强放射治疗方案（IMRT），均为临床代表性解剖部位。在初级治疗计划系统（TPS）和次级剂量验证软件中，所有计划都在患者CT数据集和固体水幻影的QA数据集上进行评估，固体水幻影的中心放置了嵌入式离子室。通过计算不同DLG校正值（-2 ~ 2mm）下的三维伽马通过标准，比较TPS计划初始剂量与患者CT的二次计算剂量，确定最佳DLG校正范围。然后将离子室验证测量值与二次计算剂量进行比较，分别通过最小化IMRT和VMAT计划的差异来确定最佳DLG校正值。结果：对于选定的临床队列患者，VMAT和IMRT技术的最佳DLG矫正值分别为-0.3和0.4 mm。VMAT和IMRT一次和二次剂量的平均伽玛通过率分别为99.0%±1.0%和99.9%±0.1%，为3%/2 mm，不包括10%的低剂量标准。VMAT和IMRT的平均离子室一致性分别为0.0%±2.1%和0.2%±1.4%。结论：为使CTgART在线质量保证程序的稳健性最大化，应分别对VMAT和IMRT两种给药技术的DLG校正值进行调整。
Tuning a secondary dose verification software for a CT-guided online adaptive delivery system
Background
Quality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated.
Purpose
Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.
Methods
A total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from –2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.
Results
The optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were –0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.
Conclusion
DLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
