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
  • [41] A Synthesized Gamma Map-Based Patient-Specific VMAT QA Using a Generative Adversarial Network
    Matsuura, T.
    Kawahara, D.
    Saito, A.
    Yamada, K.
    Ozawa, S.
    Nagata, Y.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E897 - E898
  • [42] Comparison of Shallow Fluence to Deep Point Dose Measurements for Spine VMAT SBRT Patient-Specific QA
    Cheung, J.
    Held, M.
    Morin, O.
    Weethee, B.
    Chuang, C.
    Perez-Andujar, A.
    Sudhyadhom, A.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3192 - 3192
  • [43] A statistical approach to IMRT patient-specific QA
    Palaniswaamy, Geethpriya
    Brame, Ryan Scott
    Yaddanapudi, Sridhar
    Rangaraj, Dharanipathy
    Mutic, Sasa
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (12) : 7560 - 7570
  • [44] Reproducibility in the Field of Patient-Specific IMRT QA
    McKenzie, E.
    Balter, P.
    Jones, J.
    Followill, D.
    Stingo, F.
    Kry, S.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
  • [45] Application of statistical process control (SPC) to patient-specific VMAT quality assurance
    Cilla, S.
    Viola, P.
    Craus, M.
    Deodato, F.
    Macchia, G.
    Digesu, C.
    Sallustio, G.
    Piermattei, A.
    Morganti, A. G.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S173 - S173
  • [46] How well does Compass compare to film for prostate VMAT patient-specific QC?
    Nash, D.
    Huggins, M.
    Kearton, J.
    Palmer, A. L.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 119 : S712 - S713
  • [47] Evaluation of QA Dosimetry System for SRS and SBRT Patient-Specific QA
    Hillman, Y.
    Kim, J.
    Chetty, I.
    Wen, N.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 3273 - 3273
  • [48] Patient-specific dose escalation with, consideration of radiobiological factors
    Hood, C
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 : S211 - S211
  • [49] A Patient-Specific Heterogeneous Radiobiological Model for Glioblastoma Multiforme
    McGuinness, C.
    Barani, I.
    Noble, R.
    Ng, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3702 - 3703
  • [50] An effective and optimized patient-specific QA workload reduction for VMAT plans after MLC-modelling optimization
    Marsac, Thomas
    Camejo, Arianna Batista
    Chiavassa, Sophie
    Jan, Simon
    Lorand, Hugo
    Moignier, Alexandra
    [J]. PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 107