Deep Multimodal Neural Network Based on Data-Feature Fusion for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Hu ◽  
Lizhang Xie ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Guangjun Li ◽  
Zhang Yi
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Feature Fusion ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Maximum Deviation ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Medical Physicists

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans is routinely performed in the clinical. However, it is labor-intensive and time-consuming for medical physicists. QA prediction models can address these shortcomings and improve efficiency. Current approaches mainly focus on single cancer and single modality data. They are not applicable to clinical practice. To assess the accuracy of QA results for VMAT plans, this paper presents a new model that learns complementary features from the multi-modal data to predict the gamma passing rate (GPR). According to the characteristics of VMAT plans, a feature-data fusion approach is designed to fuse the features of imaging and non-imaging information in the model. In this study, 690 VMAT plans are collected encompassing more than ten diseases. The model can accurately predict the most VMAT plans at all three gamma criteria: 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm. The mean absolute error between the predicted and measured GPR is 2.17%, 1.16% and 0.71%, respectively. The maximum deviation between the predicted and measured GPR is 3.46%, 4.6%, 8.56%, respectively. The proposed model is effective, and the features of the two modalities significantly influence QA results.

scholarly journals Analysis of Clinical Patient-Specific Pre-Treatment Quality Assurance with the New Helical TomoTherapy® Platform, following the AAPM TG-218 Report

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Fusella ◽  
Samuele Cavinato ◽  
Alessandra Germani ◽  
Marta Paiusco ◽  
Nicola Pivato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Helical Tomotherapy ◽  
Treatment Quality ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Clinical Patient ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Delivery Accuracy ◽  
Global And Local

Abstract Purpose: This study presents patient-specific quality assurance (QA) results from the first 395 clinical cases for the new helical TomoTherapy® platform (Radixact) coupled with dedicated Precision TPS.Methods: The passing rate of the Gamma Index (GP%) of 395 helical QA of patient-specific Tomotherapy, acquired with ArcCHECK, is presented, analysed and correlated to various parameters of the plan. Following TG-218 recommendations, the clinic specific action limit (ALcs) and tolerance limit (TLcs) were calculated for our clinic and monitored during the analysed period.Results: the mean values ​​(± 1 standard deviation) of GP% (3% / 2mm) (both global and local normalization) are: 97.6% and 90.9%, respectively. The proposed ALcs and TLcs, after a period of two years’ process monitoring are 89.4% and 91.1% respectively.Conclusions: The phantom measurements closely match the planned dose distributions, demonstrating that the calculation accuracy of the new Precision TPS and the delivery accuracy of the Radixact unit are adequate, with respect to international guidelines and reports. Furthermore, a first correlation with the planning parameters was made. Action and tolerance limits have been set for the new Radixact Linac.

scholarly journals Feasibility Study of Mobius3D for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Chang Yeol Lee ◽  
Woo Chul Kim ◽  
Hun Jeong Kim ◽  
Jeongshim Lee ◽  
Hyun Do Huh
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Arc Therapy

scholarly journals Evaluation of Delta4DVH Anatomy in 3D Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 153303382094581
Author(s):  
Du Tang ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Xunzhang Dai ◽  
Ying Cao
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pencil Beam ◽  
Ion Chamber ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Gamma Passing Rate

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. Materials and Methods: Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated. Results: For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta4 geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients’ quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% ± 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta4 geometry was 99.6% ± 0.89%, 98.54% ± 1.60%, and 98.95% ± 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% ± 1.23% and 93.04% ± 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients’ geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta4 and patients’ geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients’ geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3°. Conclusions: The new Delta4DVH Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.

Patient-specific quality assurance measurements for VMAT treatments: Do we really catch errors?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfram Laub ◽  
Charles R. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Imrt Qa ◽  
Passing Rates ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Gamma Index ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Alignment Errors

81 Background: Patient-specific quality assurance measurements are time consuming and Gamma pass/fail criteria are often picked based on typical criteria used for IMRT QA measurements in the past. The questions needs to be asked if with these criteria QA plans could still show clinically significant deviations from the treatment plan calculated and how we should be doing QA for treatment delivery of complex treatment plans. In our study DICOM files of clinical Rapidarc plans were modified with in-house developed software to mimic leaf alignment errors and gravitation shifts. The Octavius 2D-ARRAY (PTW-Freiburg) and the Delta4 device (Scandidos) were used to investigate the effect of the simulated errors on the passing rate of quality assurance results. The manipulated Rapidarc plans were recalculated on patient CT scans in Eclipse. Methods: Three different types of errors were simulated and applied to five prostate (two arcs), three 2-arc head and neck cases and three 3-arc head and neck cases. The MLC modifications were: (1) both MLC banks are opened by 0.25mm, 0.50mm and 1.00mm in opposing directions resulting in larger fields, (2) both MLC banks are closed by 0.10mm, 0.25mm and 0.50mm, (3) both MLC banks are shifted in the same direction for lateral gantry angles to simulate effects of gravitational forces onto the leaves by 1mm, 2mm and 3mm, (4) 25%, 50% 70% and 100% of all active leaves are shifted by 3mm as in (3). QA evaluations were performed according to a gamma-index criterion of 3mm and 3% as well as 2mm and 2%. Results: All unmodified plans and the majority of the plans with the smallest modification pass the gamma-index criterion of 2%/2mm with >90%. After that the passing rate drops below 90%. For the largest modifications passing rates were typically below 85%. The Delta4 is generally more sensitive and the passing rate for modified plans drops below 90% earlier and more drastically. With the standard criteria (3mm, 3%) even the largest modifications would satisfy a >90% passing rate. Conclusions: A stricter gamma-index (2mm, 2%) is necessary in order to detect MLC positional errors and a passing rate of >90% should be expected. Clinical pass/fail criteria need to be developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document