The objective determination of performance standards for radiation therapy equipment requires, ideally, establishing the quantitative relationship between performance deviations and clinical outcome or some acceptable surrogate. In this simulation study the authors analyzed the dosimetric impact of random (leaf by leaf) and systematic (entire leaf bank) errors in the position of the MLC leaves on seven clinical prostate and seven clinical head and neck IMRT plans delivered using a dynamic MLC. In-house software was developed to incorporate normally distributed errors of up to +/- 2 mm in individual leaf position or systematic errors (+/- 1 and +/- 0.5 mm in all leaves of both leaf banks or +1 mm in one bank only) into the 14 plans, thus simulating treatment delivery using a suboptimally performing MLC. The dosimetric consequences of suboptimal MLC performance were quantified using the equivalent uniform doses (EUDs) of the clinical target volumes and important organs at risk (OARs). The deviation of the EUDs of the selected structures as the performance of the MLC deteriorated was used as the objective surrogate of clinical outcome. Random errors of 2 mm resulted in negligible changes for all structures of interest in both sites. In contrast, systematic errors can lead to potentially significant dosimetric changes that may compromise clinical outcome. If a 2% change in EUD of the target and 2 Gy for the OARs were adopted as acceptable levels of deviation in dose due to MLC effects alone, then systematic errors in leaf position will need to be limited to 0.3 mm. This study provides guidance, based on a dosimetric surrogate of clinical outcome, for the development of one component, leaf position accuracy of performance standards for multileaf collimators.
The optimal threshold values that were determined represent a maximized test sensitivity and specificity and are not subject to any user bias. When applied to the datasets that we studied, our results suggest the use of patient specific QA as a safety tool that can effectively prevent large errors (e.g., σ > 3 mm) as opposed to a tool to improve the quality of IMRT delivery.
The performance of a convolution/superposition based treatment planning system depends on the ability of the dose calculation algorithm to accurately account for physical interactions taking place in the tissue, key components of the linac head and on the accuracy of the photon beam model. Generally the user has little or no control over the performance of the dose calculation algorithm but is responsible for the accuracy of the beam model within the constraints imposed by the system. This study explores the dosimetric impact of limitations in photon beam modeling accuracy on complex 3D clinical treatment plans. A total of 70 photon beam models was created in the Pinnacle treatment planning system. Two of the models served as references for 6 MV and 15 MV beams, while the rest were created by perturbing the reference models in order to produce specific deviations in specific regions of the calculated dose profiles (central axis and transverse). The beam models were then used to generate 3D plans on seven CT data sets each for four different treatment sites (breast and conformal prostate, lung and brain). The equivalent uniform doses (EUD) of the targets and the principal organs at risk (OARs) of all plans ( approximately 1000) were calculated and compared to the EUDs delivered by the reference beam models. In general, accurate dosimetry of the target is most greatly compromised by poor modeling of the central axis depth dose and the horns, while the EUDs of the OARs exhibited the greatest sensitivity to beam width accuracy. Based on the results of this analysis we suggest a set of tolerances to be met during commissioning of the beam models in a treatment planning system that are consistent in terms of clinical outcomes as predicted by the EUD.
None of the techniques or criteria tested is sufficiently sensitive, with the population of IMRT fields, to detect a systematic MLC offset at a clinically significant level on an individual field. Patient specific QC cannot, therefore, substitute for routine QC of the MLC itself.
The authors describe a detailed evaluation of the capabilities of imaging and image registration systems available with Varian linear accelerators for image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Specifically, they present modulation transfer function curves for megavoltage planar, kilovoltage (kV) planar, and cone beam computed tomography imaging systems and compare these with conventional computed tomography. While kV planar imaging displayed the highest spatial resolution, all IGRT imaging techniques were assessed as adequate for their intended purpose. They have also characterized the image registration software available for use in conjunction with these imaging systems through a comprehensive phantom study involving translations in three orthogonal directions. All combinations of imaging systems and image registration software were found to be accurate, although the planar kV imaging system with automatic registration was generally superior, with both accuracy and precision of the order of 1 mm, under the conditions tested. Based on their phantom study, the attainable accuracy for rigid body translations using any of the features available with Varian equipment will more likely be limited by the resolution of the couch readouts than by inherent limitations in the imaging systems and image registration software. Overall, the accuracy and precision of currently available IGRT technology exceed published experience with the accuracy and precision of contouring for planning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.