Preliminary evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning

Borca, Valeria Casanova; Radici, Lorenzo; Petrucci, Edoardo; Piva, Cristina; Cante, Domenico; Pasquino, Massimo

doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102528

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of in‐house or commercial software solutions exist to independently recalculate treatment plans 8–12 . An overview of products and guidance on commissioning and utilizing a secondary monitor unit (MU) check program was given in a recent task group report 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of in-house or commercial software solutions exist to independently recalculate treatment plans. [8][9][10][11][12] An overview of products and guidance on commissioning and utilizing a secondary monitor unit (MU) check program was given in a recent task group report. 13 While the report focuses primarily on pointdose/MU checks, programs now typically allow for a three-dimensional dose calculation on the patient anatomy and a comparison of dose maps or assessment of DVH parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans

Wegener,

Abu Rashed,

Sauer

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeSecondary dose calculation (SDC) with an independent algorithm is one option to perform plan‐specific quality assurance (QA). While measurement‐based QA can potentially detect errors in plan delivery, the dose values are typically only compared to calculations on homogeneous phantom geometries instead of patient CT data. We analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of an SDC software by purposely introducing different errors and determined thresholds for optimal decisions.MethodsThirty head and neck VMAT plans and 30 modifications of those plans, including errors related to density and beam modelling, were recalculated using RadCalc with a Monte Carlo algorithm. Decision thresholds were obtained by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. For comparison, measurement‐based QA using the ArcCHECK phantom was carried out and evaluated in the same way.ResultsDespite optimized decision thresholds, none of the systems was able to reliably detect all errors. ArcCHECK analysis using a 2%/2 mm criterion with a threshold of 91.1% had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80. Evaluating differences in recalculated and planned DVH parameter of the target structures in RadCalc with a 2% threshold an AUC of 0.86 was achieved. Out‐of‐field deviations could be attributed to weaknesses in the beam model.ConclusionsSecondary dose calculation with RadCalc is an alternative to established measurement‐based phantom QA. Different tools catch different errors; therefore, a combination of approaches should be preferred.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans

Wegener,

Abu Rashed,

Sauer

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Delta4-based Dosimetric Error Detection in Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy: Clinical Significance and Implications

Udee,

Commukchik,

Khamfongkhruea

et al. 2024

Journal of Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an efficient method of administering intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. The Delta4 device was employed to examine patient data. Aims and Objectives: The utility of the Delta4 device in identifying errors for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT plans was studied in this research. Materials and Methods: Intentional errors were purposely created in the collimator rotation, gantry rotation, multileaf collimator (MLC) position displacement, and increase in the number of monitor units (MU). Results: The results show that when the characteristics of the treatment plans were changed, the gamma passing rate (GPR) decreased. The largest percentage of erroneous detection was seen in the increasing number of MU, with a GPR ranging from 41 to 92. Gamma analysis was used to compare the dose distributions of the original and intentional error designs using the 2%/2 mm criteria. The percentage of dose errors (DEs) in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) was also analyzed, and the statistical association was assessed using logistic regression. A modest association (Pearson’s R-values: 0.12–0.67) was seen between the DE and GPR in all intentional plans. The findings indicated a moderate association between DVH and GPR. The data reveal that Delta4 is effective in detecting mistakes in treatment regimens for head-and-neck cancer as well as lung cancer. Conclusion: The study results also imply that Delta4 can detect errors in VMAT plans, depending on the details of the defects and the treatment plans employed.

show abstract

Preliminary evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans

Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans

Delta4-based Dosimetric Error Detection in Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy: Clinical Significance and Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About