Log file-based patient dose calculations of double-arc VMAT for head-and-neck radiotherapy

Robustness analysis of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancer

Background and purpose

Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) has been shown to improve healthy tissue sparing compared to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). This study aimed to assess and compare the robustness of DTRT and VMAT treatment-plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer to patient-setup (PS) and machine-positioning uncertainties.

Materials and methods

The robustness of DTRT and VMAT plans previously created for 46 H&N cases, prescribed 50-70 Gy to 95 % of the planning-target-volume, was assessed. For this purpose, dose distributions were recalculated using Monte Carlo, including uncertainties in PS (translation and rotation) and machine-positioning (gantry-, table-, collimator-rotation and multi-leaf collimator (MLC)). Plan robustness was evaluated by the uncertainties' impact on normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for xerostomia and dysphagia and on dose-volume endpoints. Differences between DTRT and VMAT plan robustness were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test (α  = 5 %).

Results

Average NTCP for moderate-to-severe xerostomia and grade ≥ II dysphagia was lower for DTRT than VMAT in the nominal scenario (0.5 %, p = 0.01; 2.1 %, p < 0.01) and for all investigated uncertainties, except MLC positioning, where the difference was not significant. Average differences compared to the nominal scenario were ≤ 3.5 Gy for rotational PS (≤ 3°) and machine-positioning (≤ 2°) uncertainties, <7 Gy for translational PS uncertainties (≤ 5 mm) and < 20 Gy for MLC-positioning uncertainties (≤ 5 mm).

Conclusions

DTRT and VMAT plan robustness to the investigated uncertainties depended on uncertainty direction and location of the structure-of-interest to the target. NTCP remained on average lower for DTRT than VMAT even when considering uncertainties.

A structured FMEA approach to optimizing combinations of plan-specific quality assurance techniques for IMRT and VMAT QA

BACKGROUND

Many commercial tools are available for plan-specific quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy plans, with their functionality assessed in isolation. However, multiple QA tools are required to review the full range of potential errors. It is important to assess their effectiveness in combination with each other to look for ways to both streamline the QA process and to make certain that errors of high impact and/or high occurrence are caught before reaching patient treatment.

PURPOSE

To develop a structured method to assess the effective risk reduction of combinations of QA methods for IMRT/VMAT treatments.

METHODS

First, a structured prospective risk assessment was performed to establish the major failure modes (FMs) of IMRT/VMAT QA, and assign occurrence (O), severity (S), and baseline detectability (BD) rankings to them. The baseline assumed that chart checks and linear accelerator QA was performed, but no plan-specific secondary dose calculation or measurement was done. Second, the detectability of each FM for two secondary dose calculation methods and four plan measurement methods (point-based dose calculation, Monte-Carlo-based dose calculation, 2D fluence-based measurement, 2.5D phantom-based measurement, log file analysis with dose recalculation, and log file analysis combined with MLC QA) was determined. Third, we used a minimum detectability approach in addition to each FM's occurrence and severity to determine the optimal combination of QA methods. We analyzed the cumulative risk priority number of eight combinations of QA methods. The analysis was done on (1) all FMs, (2) FMs with high severity, (3) FMs with high-risk priority numbers (RPN) of O*S*BD, and (4) on FMs with both high severity and high RPN.

RESULTS

Our analysis resulted in 54 FMs, including commissioning, planning, data transfer, and linear accelerator failures. 1D secondary dose calculation plus measurement provided a 19%-22% risk reduction from baseline. 1D/3D secondary dose calculation plus log files created a 25%-32% reduction. 3D secondary dose calculation plus measurement resulted in a 27%-34% reduction. 3D secondary dose calculation plus log files with additional machine QA provided the greatest reduction of 31%-42%.

CONCLUSION

This novel structured approach to comparing combinations of QA methods will allow us to optimize our procedures, with the goal of detecting all clinically significant FMs. Our results show that log-file QA with 3D dose recalculation and supplemental machine QA provides better risk reduction than measurement-based QA. This work builds evidence to justify reducing or eliminating measurement-based PSQA with an independent 3D dose verification, log-file measurement, and appropriate supplementation of machine QA. The process also highlights FMs that cannot be caught by pre-treatment QA, prompting us to consider future directions for on-treatment QA.

Treatment plan prescreening for patient-specific quality assurance measurements using independent Monte Carlo dose calculations

PURPOSE

This study proposes a method to identify plans that failed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) and attempts to establish a criterion to prescreen treatment plans for patient-specific QA measurements with independent Monte Carlo dose calculations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient-specific QA results measured with an ArcCHECK diode array of 207 patients (head and neck: 25; thorax: 61; abdomen: 121) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and plans were optimized with a Pinnacle v16.2 treatment planning system using an analytical algorithm-based dose engine. Afterwards, phantom verification plans were designed and recalculated by an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine, ArcherQA. Moreover, sensitivity and specificity analyzes of gamma passing rates between measurements and MC calculations were carried out to show the ability of MC to monitor failing plans (ArcCHECK 3%/3 mm,<90%), and attempt to determine the appropriate threshold and gamma passing rate criterion utilized by ArcherQA to prescreen treatment plans for ArcCHECK measurements. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was also utilized to characterize the performance of different gamma passing rate criterion used by ArcherQA.

RESULTS

The thresholds for 100% sensitivity to detect plans that failed patient-specific QA by independent calculation were 97.0%, 95.4%, and 91.0% for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively, which corresponded to specificities of 0.720, 0.528, and 0.585, respectively. It was shown that the 3%/3 mm criterion with 97% threshold for ArcherQA demonstrated perfect sensitivity and the highest specificity compared with other criteria, which may be suitable for prescreening treatment plans treated with the investigated machine to implement measurement-based patient-specific QA of patient plans. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) calculated from ROC analysis for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm used by ArcherQA were 0.948, 0.924, and 0.929, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Independent dose calculation with the MC-based program ArcherQA has potential as a prescreen treatment for measurement-based patient-specific QA. AUC values (>0.9) showed excellent classification accuracy for monitoring failing plans with independent MC calculations.

Development of a Monte Carlo based robustness calculation and evaluation tool

Background

Evaluating plan robustness is a key step in radiotherapy.

Purpose

To develop a flexible Monte Carlo (MC)‐based robustness calculation and evaluation tool to assess and quantify dosimetric robustness of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans by exploring the impact of systematic and random uncertainties resulting from patient setup, patient anatomy changes, and mechanical limitations of machine components.

Methods

The robustness tool consists of two parts: the first part includes automated MC dose calculation of multiple user‐defined uncertainty scenarios to populate a robustness space. An uncertainty scenario is defined by a certain combination of uncertainties in patient setup, rigid intrafraction motion and in mechanical steering of the following machine components: angles of gantry, collimator, table‐yaw, table‐pitch, table‐roll, translational positions of jaws, multileaf‐collimator (MLC) banks, and single MLC leaves. The Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP) is integrated in this tool to serve as the backbone for the MC dose calculations incorporating the uncertainties. The calculated dose distributions serve as input for the second part of the tool, handling the quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric impact of the uncertainties. A graphical user interface (GUI) is developed to simultaneously evaluate the uncertainty scenarios according to user‐specified conditions based on dose‐volume histogram (DVH) parameters, fast and exact gamma analysis, and dose differences. Additionally, a robustness index (RI) is introduced with the aim to simultaneously evaluate and condense dosimetric robustness against multiple uncertainties into one number. The RI is defined as the ratio of scenarios passing the conditions on the dose distributions. Weighting of the scenarios in the robustness space is possible to consider their likelihood of occurrence. The robustness tool is applied on IMRT, a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT), and a dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER) plan for a brain case to evaluate the robustness to uncertainties of gantry‐, table‐, collimator angle, MLC, and intrafraction motion. Additionally, the robustness of the IMRT, VMAT, and DTRT plan against patient setup uncertainties are compared. The robustness tool is validated by Delta4 measurements for scenarios including all uncertainty types available.

Results

The robustness tool performs simultaneous calculation of uncertainty scenarios, and the GUI enables their fast evaluation. For all evaluated plans and uncertainties, the planning target volume (PTV) margin prevented major clinical target volume (CTV) coverage deterioration (maximum observed standard deviation of D98%CTV was 1.3 Gy). OARs close to the PTV experienced larger dosimetric deviations (maximum observed standard deviation of D2%chiasma was 14.5 Gy). Robustness comparison by RI evaluation against patient setup uncertainties revealed better dosimetric robustness of the VMAT and DTRT plans as compared to the IMRT plan. Delta4 validation measurements agreed with calculations by >96% gamma‐passing rate (3% global/2 mm).

Conclusions

The robustness tool was successfully implemented. Calculation and evaluation of uncertainty scenarios with the robustness tool were demonstrated on a brain case. Effects of patient and machine‐specific uncertainties and the combination thereof on the dose distribution are evaluated in a user‐friendly GUI to quantitatively assess and compare treatment plans and their robustness.