Detecting MLC modeling errors using radiomics‐based machine learning in patient‐specific QA with an EPID for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madoka Sakai ◽  
Hisashi Nakano ◽  
Daisuke Kawahara ◽  
Satoshi Tanabe ◽  
Takeshi Takizawa ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaeman Son ◽  
Taesung Baek ◽  
Boram Lee ◽  
Dongho Shin ◽  
Sung Yong Park ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. This study was designed to compare the quality assurance (QA) results of four dosimetric tools used for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to suggest universal criteria for the passing rate in QA, irrespective of the dosimetric tool used. Materials and methods. Thirty fields of IMRT plans from five patients were selected, followed by irradiation onto radiochromic film, a diode array (Mapcheck), an ion chamber array (MatriXX) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for patient-specific QA. The measured doses from the four dosimetric tools were compared with the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. The passing rates of the four dosimetric tools were calculated using the gamma index method, using as criteria a dose difference of 3% and a distance-to-agreement of 3 mm. Results. The QA results based on Mapcheck, MatriXX and EPID showed good agreement, with average passing rates of 99.61%, 99.04% and 99.29%, respectively. However, the average passing rate based on film measurement was significantly lower, 95.88%. The average uncertainty (1 standard deviation) of passing rates for 6 intensity modulated fields was around 0.31 for film measurement, larger than those of the other three dosimetric tools. Conclusions. QA results and consistencies depend on the choice of dosimetric tool. Universal passing rates should depend on the normalization or inter-comparisons of dosimetric tools if more than one dosimetric tool is used for patient specific QA.


2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (6) ◽  
pp. 555-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid Abdollahi ◽  
Bahram Mofid ◽  
Isaac Shiri ◽  
Abolfazl Razzaghdoust ◽  
Afshin Saadipoor ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-578
Author(s):  
Satoshi Nakamura ◽  
Hiroyuki Okamoto ◽  
Akihisa Wakita ◽  
Rei Umezawa ◽  
Kana Takahashi ◽  
...  

Abstract There are many reports concerning patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, reports about the statistical results of QA are lacking. Management methods for the results of the QA are needed, even though we have the ESTRO group recommendation that a tolerance limit of 1.96 standard deviation (SD) be established in each institution. The purpose of this study was to establish a management method for determining the tolerance limit and to report the statistical results of patient-specific QA. From April 2006 to March 2015, five linacs in the National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, were used to treat 1185 patients with IMRT. Patient-specific QA was performed using an ion chamber, films, and some detectors. To establish a management method for the results, differences between the measured and calculated doses in the ion chamber were analyzed for each linac, each phantom, and each treatment site. The overall mean dose difference was 0.5 ± 1.3%, and the mean dose difference in each linac was 0.6 ± 1.2%, 0.9 ± 1.3%, −0.4 ± 1.4%, −0.1 ± 1.2% and −0.1 ± 0.9%. The difference between linacs and between treatment sites was significant (P < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). The proportion of the dose difference within ±3% was 97.7%, and that was improved from 2006 to 2014. The results of the patient-specific QA should be managed for each linac and each treatment site in order to decide the suitable tolerance limit. Reports of statistical results will be helped if a new tolerance limit and action level will be considered.


Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Lan ◽  
Hoang Dai Viet ◽  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
James C. L. Chow

Abstract Purpose: This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and methods: A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany). Results: The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF). Conclusions: It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
Luong Thi Oanh ◽  
Nguyen Dong Son ◽  
Truong Thi Hong Loan

Abstract Introduction: Jaws-Only Intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) is a technique uses the collimator jaws of the linear accelerator (LINAC) to delivery of complex intensity patterns. In previous studies, pretreatment patient specific quality assurance for those JO-IMRT were also performed using ionization chamber, MapCHECK2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown. The aim of this study is to further verify JO-IMRT plans in 2 different cases: one with the gantry angle set equal to beam angle as in the plans and the other with gantry angle set to zero degree. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five JO-IMRT, previously verified, were executed twice for each plan. The first one used a real gantry angle, and the second one used a 0° gantry angle. Measurements were performed using Octavius 4D 1500. Results: The results were analyzed using Verisoft software. The results show that the Gamma average was 97.32 ± 2.21% for IMRT with a 0° gantry angle and 94.72 ± 2.67% for IMRT with a true gantry angle. Conclusion: In both cases, gamma index of more than 90% were found for all of our 25 JO-IMRT treatment plans.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document