Han Ce, Yi Jinling, Zhu Kecheng, Zhou Yongqiang, Ai Yao, Zheng Xiaomin, Xie Congying, Jin Xiance
Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Nov;21(11):98-104. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13036. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
Independent treatment planning system (TPS) check with Mobius3D software, log files based quality assurance (QA) with MobiusFX, and phantom measurement-based QA with ArcCHECK were performed and cross verified for head-and-neck (17 patients), chest (16 patients), and abdominal (19 patients) cancer patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dosimetric differences and percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) were evaluated and compared for this cross verification. For the dosimetric differences in planning target volume (PTV) coverage, there was no significant difference among TPS vs. Mobius3D, TPS vs. MobiusFX, and TPS vs. ArcCHECK. For the dosimetric differences in organs at risks (OARs), the number of metrics with an average dosimetric differences higher than ±3% for TPS vs Mobius3D, TPS vs MobiusFX, and TPS vs ArcCHECK were 1, 1, 7; 2, 1, 4; 1, 1, 5 for the patients with head-and-neck, abdomen, and chest cancer, respectively. The %GPs of global gamma indices for Mobius3D and MobiousFX were above 97%, while it ranged from 92% to 96% for ArcCHECK. The %GPs of individual volume-based gamma indices were around 98% for Mobius3D and MobiousFX, except for γPTV for chest and abdominal cancer (88.9% to 92%); while it ranged from 86% to 99% for ArcCHECK. In conclusion, some differences in dosimetric metrics and gamma passing rates were observed with ArcCHECK measurement-based QA in comparison with independent dosecheck and log files based QA. Care must be taken when considering replacing phantom measurement-based IMRT/VMAT QA.
使用Mobius3D软件进行独立治疗计划系统（TPS）检查，使用MobiusFX进行基于日志文件的质量保证（QA），并使用ArcCHECK进行基于体模测量的QA，对接受容积调强弧形放疗（VMAT）的头颈癌（17例患者）、胸癌（16例患者）和腹癌（19例患者）患者进行交叉验证。对这种交叉验证评估并比较了剂量差异和百分比伽马通过率（%GPs）。对于计划靶区（PTV）覆盖的剂量差异，TPS与Mobius3D、TPS与MobiusFX以及TPS与ArcCHECK之间没有显著差异。对于危及器官（OARs）的剂量差异，TPS与Mobius3D、TPS与MobiusFX以及TPS与ArcCHECK之间平均剂量差异高于±3%的指标数量，头颈癌、腹癌和胸癌患者分别为1、1、7；2、1、4；1、1、5。Mobius3D和MobiousFX的全局伽马指数的%GPs高于97%，而ArcCHECK的范围为92%至96%。Mobius3D和MobiousFX基于个体体积的伽马指数的%GPs约为98%，胸部和腹部癌症的γPTV除外（88.9%至92%）；而ArcCHECK的范围为86%至99%。总之，与独立剂量检查和基于日志文件的QA相比，基于ArcCHECK测量的QA在剂量指标和伽马通过率方面存在一些差异。在考虑替代基于体模测量的IMRT/VMAT QA时必须谨慎。
