Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021 Mar;22(3):166-175. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13201. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose-volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (R = 0.99; R = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.
本研究的目的是比较两种探测器——积分质量监测器(iRT systems IQM)和电子射野影像装置(Varian PortalVision aS1200)——在容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)前的质量保证(QA)测量中的表现,并评估多叶准直器(MLC)的误差灵敏度。对 20 个回顾性 VMAT 计划(53 个射野)进行了预治疗 QA 测量。其中 10 个计划(23 个射野)用于研究每个设备的 MLC 误差灵敏度。为每个 VMAT 计划创建了 8 个 MLC 误差计划。这些误差包括 MLC 的系统开闭(±0.25、±0.50、±0.75mm)和单个/多个叶片的随机位置误差(1mm)。IQM 的评估是基于测量的累积信号相对于计算信号的百分比误差。EPID 的评估使用了两种方法:一种是测量的相对预测累积信号的百分比误差,另一种是伽马(γ)分析(Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy 计划的 1%/1mm、2%/2mm、3%/3mm 和 3%/1mm)。还比较了不同系统 MLC 偏移时从剂量体积直方图(DVH)数据获得的最大剂量变化和探测器信号的变化。累积信号差异表明,测量和预期探测器信号之间具有相似的一致性水平(IQM:1.00±0.55%;EPID:1.22±0.92%)。γ 分析的结果缺乏特异性。只有 1%/1mm 的标准产生了明显不同的数据。IQM 和 EPID 与 MLC 误差大小的累积信号差异之间观察到很强的线性相关性(R=0.99)。同样,结果表明两个探测器的累积信号与 DVH 剂量之间存在很强的相关性(R=0.99;R=0.97)。总之,与 γ 分析相比,使用累积信号差异可能更有助于检测治疗中 EPID 的误差。