Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments

被引:7
|
作者
Clemente-Gutierrez, Francisco [1 ]
Perez-Vara, Consuelo [1 ]
Clavo-Herranz, Maria H. [2 ]
Lopez-Carrizosa, Concepcion [2 ]
Perez-Regadera, Jose [3 ]
Ibanez-Villoslada, Carmen [2 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Cent Def Gomez Ulla, Secc Radiofis, Serv Oncol Radioterap, Glorieta del Ejercito S-N, Madrid 28047, Spain
[2] Hosp Cent Def Gomez Ulla, Serv Oncol Radioterap, Madrid, Spain
[3] Hosp Univ Doce Octubre, Serv Oncol Radioterap, Madrid, Spain
来源
关键词
VMAT QA; pretreatment verifications; 3D dose reconstruction; radiobiological metrics; VOLUMETRIC MODULATED ARC; TISSUE COMPLICATION PROBABILITY; EXTERNAL-BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; RADIATION-THERAPY; DOSE-RESPONSE; CANCER PATIENTS; PASSING RATES; HUMAN-TUMORS; IMRT; REDUCTION;
D O I
10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5783
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
VMAT is a powerful technique to deliver hypofractionated prostate treatments. The lack of correlations between usual 2D pretreatment QA results and the clinical impact of possible mistakes has allowed the development of 3D verification systems. Dose determination on patient anatomy has provided clinical predictive capability to patient-specific QA process. Dose-volume metrics, as evaluation criteria, should be replaced or complemented by radiobiological indices. These metrics can be incorporated into individualized QA extracting the information for response parameters (gEUD, TCP, NTCP) from DVHs. The aim of this study is to assess the role of two 3D verification systems dealing with radiobiological metrics applied to a prostate VMAT QA program. Radiobiological calculations were performed for AAPM TG-166 test cases. Maximum differences were 9.3% for gEUD, -1.3% for TCP, and 5.3% for NTCP calculations. Gamma tests and DVH-based comparisons were carried out for both systems in order to assess their performance in 3D dose determination for prostate treatments (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk, as well as prostate bed patients). Mean gamma passing rates for all structures were better than 92.0% and 99.1% for both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Maximum discrepancies were (2.4% +/- 0.8%) and (6.2% +/- 1.3%) for targets and normal tissues, respectively. Values for gEUD, TCP, and NTCP were extracted from TPS and compared to the results obtained with the two systems. Three models were used for TCP calculations (Poisson, sigmoidal, and Niemierko) and two models for NTCP determinations (LKB and Niemierko). The maximum mean difference for gEUD calculations was (4.7% +/- 1.3%); for TCP, the maximum discrepancy was (2.4% +/- 1.1%); and NTCP comparisons led to a maximum deviation of (1.5% +/- 0.5%). The potential usefulness of biological metrics in patient-specific QA has been explored. Both systems have been successfully assessed as potential tools for evaluating the clinical outcome of a radiotherapy treatment in the scope of pretreatment QA.
引用
收藏
页码:341 / 367
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Influence of dose specification on prostate VMAT patient-specific QA results
    Clemente Gutierrez, F.
    Perez Vara, C.
    Clavo Herranz, M.
    Lopez Carrizosa, C.
    Saez Garrido, J.
    Ibanez Villoslada, C.
    Couselo Paniagua, M.
    Zapatero Ortuno, J.
    Martin de Miguel, M.
    Dominguez Morcillo, M.
    Jerviz Guia, V.
    Calapaqui Teran, A.
    Guijarro Verdu, M.
    Navarro, J.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 119 : S726 - S726
  • [2] Reduction of Systematic Dosimetric Uncertainties in VMAT Treatments Triggered by Patient-Specific QA
    Mijnheer, B.
    Janssen, T.
    van Mourik, A.
    Kaas, J.
    Damen, E.
    Mans, A.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E245 - E245
  • [3] Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA
    Sanghangthum, Taweap
    Suriyapee, Sivalee
    Srisatit, Somyot
    Pawlicki, Todd
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2013, 54 (03) : 546 - 552
  • [4] Correlation between tolerances for EPID metrics and CI dose deviation for patient-specific VMAT QA
    Martin, G.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 182 : S1470 - S1472
  • [5] Advances in the Patient Specific QA applied to VMAT and Tomotherapy
    Picioli, M.
    Torzsok, K.
    Ruiz Plata, A.
    Marangoni, F.
    Aponte, J.
    Broque, H.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 133 : S976 - S977
  • [6] Comparison of Two Different Setups for VMAT Patient-Specific QA
    Clemente, F.
    Perez-Vara, C.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
  • [7] EXPERIENCE OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC QA FOR VMAT WITH DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS.
    Declich, F.
    Bonsignore, F.
    Butti, I.
    Frigerio, C.
    Sangalli, G.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 99 : S511 - S511
  • [8] Optical Tracking Guided Patient-Specific VMAT QA with ArcCHECK
    Fan, Q.
    Park, C.
    Lu, B.
    Barraclough, B.
    Lebron, S.
    Li, J.
    Liu, C.
    Yan, G.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3470 - 3470
  • [9] VMAT Commissioning and Patient-Specific QA Using MatriXX Phantom
    Bao, A.
    Geis, P.
    Zheng, Y.
    Pereira, G.
    Petchler, N. Kuc
    Elconin, J.
    Machtay, M.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E273 - E274
  • [10] Patient-Specific QA for HDR Brachytherapy Skin Treatments
    Palaniswaamy, G.
    Massingill, B.
    Deb, N.
    Mutyala, S.
    Rangaraj, D.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)