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
  • [21] Predicting VMAT patient-specific QA results using a support vector classifier trained on treatment plan characteristics and linac QC metrics
    Granville, Dal A.
    Sutherland, Justin G.
    Belec, Jason G.
    La Russa, Daniel J.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 64 (09):
  • [22] Statistical Process Control for Patient-Specific QA in Proton Beams
    Lah, J.
    Shin, D.
    Kim, G.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (06) : 384 - +
  • [23] Patient Specific VMAT QA for SRS with PerFraction
    Haywood, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E278 - E278
  • [24] Radiobiological Evaluation of Physical Metrics in IMPT and VMAT Planning for Prostate Cancer Patient with Metal Hip Prostheses
    Hsi, W.
    Lee, T.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (06)
  • [25] Dedicated VMAT complexity metrics reduce patient QA workload
    Dechambre, D.
    Baart, V.
    Mathot, M.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S323 - S323
  • [26] Evaluation of a 2D detector array for patient-specific VMAT QA with different setups
    Boggula, Ramesh
    Birkner, Mattias
    Lohr, Frank
    Steil, Volker
    Wenz, Frederik
    Wertz, Hansjoerg
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (22): : 7163 - 7177
  • [27] Impact of plan parameters and modulation indices on patient-specific QA results for standard and stereotactic VMAT
    Chun, Minsoo
    An, Hyun Joon
    Kwon, Ohyun
    Oh, Do Hoon
    Park, Jong Min
    Kim, Jung-in
    [J]. PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 62 : 83 - 94
  • [28] Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT
    Agnew, Christina E.
    Irvine, Denise M.
    McGarry, Conor K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 15 (06): : 204 - 216
  • [29] AAPM Task Group Report 307: Use of EPIDs for Patient-Specific IMRT and VMAT QA
    Dogan, Nesrin
    Mijnheer, Ben J.
    Padgett, Kyle
    Nalichowski, Adrian
    Wu, Chuan
    Nyflot, Matthew J.
    Olch, Arthur J.
    Papanikolaou, Niko
    Shi, Jie
    Holmes, Shannon M.
    Moran, Jean
    Greer, Peter B.
    [J]. Medical Physics, 2023, 50 (08)
  • [30] Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files
    Defoor, Dewayne L.
    Vazquez-Quino, Luis A.
    Mavroidis, Panayiotis
    Papanikolaou, Nikos
    Stathakis, Sotirios
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (03): : 206 - 215