Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024 Oct;25(10):e14492. doi: 10.1002/acm2.14492. Epub 2024 Sep 9.
To determine if patient-specific IMRT quality assurance can be measured on any matched treatment delivery system (TDS) for patient treatment delivery on another.
Three VMAT plans of varying complexity were created for each available energy for head and neck, SBRT lung, and right chestwall anatomical sites. Each plan was delivered on three matched Varian TrueBeam TDSs to the same Scandidos Delta Phantom+ diode array with only energy-specific device calibrations. Dose distributions were corrected for TDS output and then compared to TPS calculations using gamma analysis. Round-robin comparisons between measurements from each TDS were also performed using point-by-point dose difference, median dose difference, and the percent of point dose differences within 2% of the mean metrics.
All plans had more than 95% of points passing a gamma analysis using 3%/3 mm criteria with global normalization and a 20% threshold when comparing measurements to calculations. The tightest gamma analysis criteria where a plan still passed > 95% were similar across delivery systems-within 0.5%/0.5 mm for all but three plan/energy combinations. Median dose deviations in measurement-to-measurement comparisons were within 0.7% and 1.0% for global and local normalization, respectively. More than 90% of the point differences were within 2%.
A set of plans spanning available energies and complexity levels were delivered by three matched TDSs. Comparisons to calculations and between measurements showed dose distributions delivered by each TDS using the same DICOM RT-plan file meet tolerances much smaller than typical clinical IMRT QA criteria. This demonstrates each TDS is modeled to a similar accuracy by a common class (shared) beam model. Additionally, it demonstrates that dose distributions from one TDS show small differences in median dose to the others. This is an important validation component of the common beam model approach, allowing for operational improvements in the clinic.
确定是否可以在任何匹配的治疗交付系统(TDS)上测量针对患者治疗交付的特定于患者的调强放疗(IMRT)质量保证,以便在另一台设备上为患者进行治疗。
针对头颈部、SBRT 肺部和右侧胸壁解剖部位的每种可用能量,为每个可用能量创建了三种不同复杂度的 VMAT 计划。每个计划都在三个匹配的瓦里安 TrueBeam TDS 上交付,并且仅进行了能量特定的设备校准,将剂量分布校正为 TDS 输出,然后使用伽马分析与 TPS 计算进行比较。还使用逐点剂量差异、中位数剂量差异和剂量差异在平均值的 2%以内的点百分比等指标,对来自每个 TDS 的测量值进行了轮询比较。
在使用全局归一化和 20%阈值的 3%/3 毫米伽马分析标准下,所有计划的超过 95%的点均通过了伽马分析。在所有计划/能量组合中,除了三个计划/能量组合外,其他计划/能量组合的伽马分析标准最为严格,即计划仍能通过>95%的点,这些标准在交付系统之间的差异在 0.5%/0.5 毫米以内。在全局和局部归一化下,测量值之间的中位数剂量偏差分别在 0.7%和 1.0%以内。超过 90%的点差异在 2%以内。
使用三个匹配的 TDS 交付了一组涵盖可用能量和复杂度水平的计划。与计算值的比较以及测量值之间的比较表明,使用相同的 DICOM RT 计划文件交付的每个 TDS 的剂量分布都符合比典型临床 IMRT QA 标准小得多的容限。这表明,每个 TDS 都通过常见的类(共享)光束模型进行了类似的精确建模。此外,这还表明,来自一个 TDS 的剂量分布与其他 TDS 的中位数剂量差异较小。这是常见光束模型方法的重要验证部分,为临床操作改进提供了可能。