Evaluation of a two-dimensional diode array for patient-specific quality assurance of HyperArc

Technical note: Patient-specific quality assurance for multi-target single-isocenter SRS-A target-specific approach

BACKGROUND

As radiotherapy techniques advance, so do planning methods for multi-target intracranial SRS cases. Multi-target-single-isocenter (MTSI) planning offers high-precision beam delivery with shortened duration. However, accommodating all targets in a single Patient-Specific-Quality-Assurance (PSQA) with QA devices like SRS MapCHECK (SRS MC) is generally impractical.

PURPOSE

Consequently, we conducted PSQA, using a custom script, by relocating each Target or Neighboring-Target-Group (T-NTG) relative to the beam isocenter on the PSQA device, ensuring each target's dose coverage at high precision.

METHODS

SRS treatment plans use 6MV-FFF beams, consisting of four Volumetric Modulated ARC Therapy (VMAT) arcs, including one full-arc and three half arcs with couch-kicks. A custom script calculated T-NTG coordinates relative to the beam isocenter. QA verification plans were created for each T-NTG, redefining the beam isocenter for precise alignment with the center of the SRS MC. CBCT images were acquired during PSQA for SRS MC alignment, and gamma-index analysis (GIA) was performed. A single-tail paired t-test assessed the passing rate (PR) for 75 QA verification plans.

RESULTS

GIA with l.0 mm/2.0% criteria for each QA plan yielded a PR > 95.5%, with an average of 98.9%. Plans achieving PR > 99.0% and > 97.0% constituted 63% and 92% of studied plans, respectively. Statistical significance was observed in a t-test with an ideal PR value of 100%, while insignificance was found with a PR value of 99%, suggesting that PSQA for individual targets consistently approaches 99% PR. In MTSI cases using 6MV-FFF beams, targets within the lateral dose-fall-off region require careful verification for acceptability. Our clinical study on individual T-NTG relocation demonstrates that the presented PSQA methods are generally acceptable, supported by a statistically insignificant PR against a 99% PR value.

CONCLUSIONS

Presented statistical analysis results indicate that the proposed PSQA approach can serve as a reliable tool in clinical settings.

Independent Monte Carlo dose calculation identifies single isocenter multi-target radiosurgery targets most likely to fail pre-treatment measurement

PURPOSE

For individual targets of single isocenter multi-target (SIMT) Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we assess dose difference between the treatment planning system (TPS) and independent Monte Carlo (MC), and demonstrate persistence into the pre-treatment Quality Assurance (QA) measurement.

METHODS

Treatment plans from 31 SIMT SRS patients were recalculated in a series of scenarios designed to investigate sources of discrepancy between TPS and independent MC. Targets with > 5% discrepancy in DMean[Gy] after progressing through all scenarios were measured with SRS MapCHECK. A matched pair analysis was performed comparing SRS MapCHECK results for these targets with matched targets having similar characteristics (volume & distance from isocenter) but no such MC dose discrepancy.

RESULTS

Of 217 targets analyzed, individual target mean dose (DMean[Gy]) fell outside a 5% threshold for 28 and 24 targets before and after removing tissue heterogeneity effects, respectively, while only 5 exceeded the threshold after removing effect of patient geometry (via calculation on StereoPHAN geometry). Significant factors affecting agreement between the TPS and MC included target distance from isocenter (0.83% decrease in DMean[Gy] per 2 cm), volume (0.15% increase per cc), and degree of plan modulation (0.37% increase per 0.01 increase in modulation complexity score). SRS MapCHECK measurement had better agreement with MC than with TPS (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold gamma pass rate (GPR) = 99.4 ± 1.9% vs. 93.1 ± 13.9%, respectively). In the matched pair analysis, targets exceeding 5% for MC versus TPS also had larger discrepancies between TPS and measurement with no GPR (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold) exceeding 90% (71.5% ± 16.1%); whereas GPR was high for matched targets with no such MC versus TPS difference (96.5% ± 3.3%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Independent MC complements pre-treatment QA measurement for SIMT SRS by identifying problematic individual targets prior to pre-treatment measurement, thus enabling plan modifications earlier in the planning process and guiding selection of targets for pre-treatment QA measurement.

A hybrid method to improve efficiency of patient specific SRS and SBRT QA using 3D secondary dose verification

PURPOSE

Patient Specific QA (PSQA) by direct phantom measurement for all intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) cases is labor intensive and an inefficient use of the Medical Physicist's time. The purpose of this work was to develop a hybrid quality assurance (QA) technique utilizing 3D dose verification as a screening tool to determine if a measurement is necessary.

METHODS

This study utilized Sun Nuclear DoseCHECK (DC), a 3D secondary verification software, and Fraction 0, a trajectory log IMRT QA software. Twenty-two Lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and thirty single isocentre multi-lesion SRS (MLSRS) plans were retrospectively analysed in DC. Agreement of DC and the TPS dose for selected dosimetric criteria was recorded. Calculated 95% confidence limits (CL) were used to establish action limits. All cases were delivered and measured using the Sun Nuclear stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) MapCheck. Trajectory logs of the delivery were used to calculate Fraction 0 results for the same criteria calculated by DC. Correlation of DC and Fraction 0 results were calculated. Phantom measured QA was compared to Fraction 0 QA results for the cases which had DC criteria action limits exceeded.

RESULTS

Correlation of DC and Fraction 0 results were excellent, demonstrating the same action limits could be used for both and DC can predict Fraction 0 results. Based on the calculated action limits, zero lung SBRT cases and six MLSRS cases were identified as requiring a measurement. All plans that passed the DC screening had a passing measurement based PSQA and agreed with Fraction 0 results.

CONCLUSION

Using 95% CL action limits of dosimetric criteria, a 3D secondary dose verification can be used to determine if a measurement is required for PSQA. This method is efficient for it is part of the normal clinical workflow when verifying any clinical treatment. In addition, it can drastically reduce the number of measurements needed for PSQA.

Optimal threshold of a control parameter for tomotherapy respiratory tracking: A phantom study

BACKGROUND

Radixact Synchrony^® , a real-time motion tracking and compensating modality, is used for helical tomotherapy. Control parameters are used for the accurate application of irradiation. Radixact Synchrony^® uses the potential difference, which is an index of the accuracy of the prediction model of target motion and is represented by a statistical prediction of the 3D distance error. Although there are several reports on Radixact Synchrony^® , few have reported the appropriate settings of the potential difference threshold.

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine the optimal threshold of the potential difference of Radixact Synchrony^® during respiratory tumor-motion-tracking irradiation.

METHODS

The relationship among the dosimetric accuracy, motion tracking accuracy, and control parameter was evaluated using a moving platform, a phantom with a basic respiratory model (the fourth power of a sinusoidal wave), and several irregular respiratory model waveforms. The dosimetric accuracy was evaluated by gamma analysis (3%, 1 mm, 10% dose threshold). The tracking accuracy was measured by the distance error of the difference between the tracked and driven positions of the phantom. The largest potential difference for 95% of treatment time was evaluated, and its correlation with the gamma-pass ratio and distance error was investigated. The optimal threshold of the potential difference was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A linear correlation was identified between the potential difference and the gamma-pass ratio (R = -0.704). A linear correlation was also identified between the potential difference and distance error (R = 0.827). However, as the potential difference increased, it tended to underestimate the distance error. The ROC analysis revealed that the appropriate cutoff value of the potential difference was 3.05 mm.

CONCLUSION

The irradiation accuracy with motion tracking by Radixact Synchrony^® could be predicted from the potential difference, and the threshold of the potential difference should be set to ∼3 mm.

Do we need patient-specific QA for adaptively generated plans? Retrospective evaluation of delivered online adaptive treatment plans on Varian Ethos

BACKGROUND

The clinical introduction of dedicated treatment units for online adaptive radiation therapy (OART) has led to widespread adoption of daily adaptive radiotherapy. OART allows for rapid generation of treatment plans using daily patient anatomy, potentially leading to reduction of treatment margins and increased normal tissue sparing. However, the OART workflow does not allow for measurement of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) during treatment delivery sessions and instead relies on secondary dose calculations for verification of adapted plans. It remains unknown if independent dose verification is a sufficient surrogate for PSQA measurements.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the plan quality of previously treated adaptive plans through multiple standard PSQA measurements.

METHODS

This IRB-approved retrospective study included sixteen patients previously treated with OART at our institution. PSQA measurements were performed for each patient's scheduled and adaptive plans: five adaptive plans were randomly selected to perform ion chamber measurements and two adaptive plans were randomly selected for ArcCHECK measurements. The same ArcCHECK 3D dose distribution was also sent to Mobius3D to evaluate the second-check dosimetry system.

RESULTS

All (n = 96) ion chamber measurements agreed with the planned dose within 3% with a mean of 1.4% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed ArcCHECK measurements using a 95% gamma passing threshold and 3%/2 mm criteria with a mean of 99.1% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed Mobius3D second-check performed with 95% gamma passing threshold and 5%/3 mm criteria with a mean of 99.0% (± 0.2%).

CONCLUSION

Plan measurement for PSQA may not be necessary for every online-adaptive treatment verification. We recommend the establishment of a periodic PSQA check to better understand trends in passing rates for delivered adaptive treatments.

Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans

Purpose

To study the impact of systematic MLC leaf positional uncertainties (stemming from mechanical inaccuracies or sub‐optimal MLC modeling) on the quality of intracranial single‐isocenter multi‐target VMAT‐SRS treatment plans. An estimation of appropriate tolerance levels is attempted.

Methods

Five patients, with three to four metastases and at least one target lying in close proximity to organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were included in this study. A single‐isocenter multi‐arc VMAT plan per patient was prepared, which served as the reference for dosimetric impact evaluation. A range of leaf offsets was introduced (±0.03 mm up to ±0.30 mm defined at the MLC plane) to both leaf banks, by varying the leaf offset MLC modeling parameter in Monaco for all the prepared plans, in order to simulate projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm up to ±0.94 mm at the isocenter plane, respectively. For all offsets simulated and cases studied, dose distributions were re‐calculated and compared with the corresponding reference ones. An experimental dosimetric procedure using the SRS mapCHECK diode array was also performed to support the simulation study results and investigate its suitability to detect small systematic leaf positional errors.

Results

Projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm were well‐tolerated with respect to both target dosimetry and OAR‐sparing. A linear relationship was found between D_95% percentage change and projected leaf offset (slope: 12%/mm). Impact of projected offset on target dosimetry was strongly associated with target volume. In two cases, plans that could be considered potentially clinically unacceptable (i.e., clinical dose constraint violation) were obtained even for projected offsets as small as 0.19 mm. The performed experimental dosimetry check can detect potential small systematic leaf errors.

Conclusions

Plan quality indices and dose–volume metrics are very sensitive to systematic sub‐millimeter leaf positional inaccuracies, projected at the isocenter plane. Acceptable and tolerance levels in systematic MLC uncertainties need to be tailored to VMAT‐SRS spatial and dosimetric accuracy requirements.