Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
Purpose: To compare the sensitivity of ArcCHECK (AC), portal dosimetry (PD), and an in-house logfile-based system (LF) to multileaf collimators (MLC) aperture errors and the ability to identify these errors. Methods and Materials: For 12 retrospective original head and neck volumetric modulated arc...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338221114499 |
| _version_ | 1811267878239862784 |
|---|---|
| author | Jinyou Hu MS Shaoxian Gu MS Ningyu Wang MS Fengjie Cui MS Shengyuan Zhang MS Chuou Yin MS Yunzhu Cai MS Chengjun Gou PhD Lian Zou PhD Zhangwen Wu PhD |
| author_facet | Jinyou Hu MS Shaoxian Gu MS Ningyu Wang MS Fengjie Cui MS Shengyuan Zhang MS Chuou Yin MS Yunzhu Cai MS Chengjun Gou PhD Lian Zou PhD Zhangwen Wu PhD |
| author_sort | Jinyou Hu MS |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: To compare the sensitivity of ArcCHECK (AC), portal dosimetry (PD), and an in-house logfile-based system (LF) to multileaf collimators (MLC) aperture errors and the ability to identify these errors. Methods and Materials: For 12 retrospective original head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, MLC aperture errors of ± 0.4mm, ± 1.2mm, ± 2mm, and ± 3mm were introduced for each plan, resulting in 96 plans with errors. AC, PD, and LF were used for the gamma evaluation at 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, and 2%/2mm criteria. Gradient analysis was used to evaluate the sensitivity to MLC aperture errors. The area under the curve (AUC) obtained from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the ability to identify MLC aperture errors and dose errors, and the optimal cut-off value to identify the error was obtained. Results: The gamma pass rate (%GP) of LF had the smallest descent gradient as the MLC error increases in any case. The descent gradient of PD was larger than AC, except for the case at the 2%/2mm criteria. For the 3%/3mm criteria, the MLC aperture errors that can be perfectly identified by AC, PD, and LF were ± 3mm, ± 2mm, and ± 1.2mm, respectively, and the average percent dose error (%DEs) of dose metrics in targets that can be perfectly identified were 4% to 5%, 3% to 4%, and 2% to 3%, respectively. For the 3%/2mm criteria, the errors that AC, PD, and LF can perfectly identify were the same as the 3%/3mm criteria. For the 2%/2mm criteria, AC can perfectly identify the MLC error of ± 2mm and the %DE of 3% to 4%. PD and LF can identify the MLC error of ± 1.2mm and the %DE of 2% to 3%. Conclusion: Different patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) systems have different sensitivity and recognition abilities to MLC aperture errors. Institutions should formulate their own customized %GP limits based on their PSQA process through ROC or other methods. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T21:10:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5e5f4bb62fb449e58148766f686010c5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1533-0338 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T21:10:27Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment |
| spelling | doaj.art-5e5f4bb62fb449e58148766f686010c52022-12-22T03:16:36ZengSAGE PublishingTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment1533-03382022-09-012110.1177/15330338221114499Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc TherapyJinyou Hu MS0Shaoxian Gu MS1Ningyu Wang MS2Fengjie Cui MS3Shengyuan Zhang MS4Chuou Yin MS5Yunzhu Cai MS6Chengjun Gou PhD7Lian Zou PhD8Zhangwen Wu PhD9 Cancer Center, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, China Cancer Center, , Chengdu, China Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology of the Ministry of Education, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, , Chengdu, ChinaPurpose: To compare the sensitivity of ArcCHECK (AC), portal dosimetry (PD), and an in-house logfile-based system (LF) to multileaf collimators (MLC) aperture errors and the ability to identify these errors. Methods and Materials: For 12 retrospective original head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, MLC aperture errors of ± 0.4mm, ± 1.2mm, ± 2mm, and ± 3mm were introduced for each plan, resulting in 96 plans with errors. AC, PD, and LF were used for the gamma evaluation at 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, and 2%/2mm criteria. Gradient analysis was used to evaluate the sensitivity to MLC aperture errors. The area under the curve (AUC) obtained from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the ability to identify MLC aperture errors and dose errors, and the optimal cut-off value to identify the error was obtained. Results: The gamma pass rate (%GP) of LF had the smallest descent gradient as the MLC error increases in any case. The descent gradient of PD was larger than AC, except for the case at the 2%/2mm criteria. For the 3%/3mm criteria, the MLC aperture errors that can be perfectly identified by AC, PD, and LF were ± 3mm, ± 2mm, and ± 1.2mm, respectively, and the average percent dose error (%DEs) of dose metrics in targets that can be perfectly identified were 4% to 5%, 3% to 4%, and 2% to 3%, respectively. For the 3%/2mm criteria, the errors that AC, PD, and LF can perfectly identify were the same as the 3%/3mm criteria. For the 2%/2mm criteria, AC can perfectly identify the MLC error of ± 2mm and the %DE of 3% to 4%. PD and LF can identify the MLC error of ± 1.2mm and the %DE of 2% to 3%. Conclusion: Different patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) systems have different sensitivity and recognition abilities to MLC aperture errors. Institutions should formulate their own customized %GP limits based on their PSQA process through ROC or other methods.https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338221114499 |
| spellingShingle | Jinyou Hu MS Shaoxian Gu MS Ningyu Wang MS Fengjie Cui MS Shengyuan Zhang MS Chuou Yin MS Yunzhu Cai MS Chengjun Gou PhD Lian Zou PhD Zhangwen Wu PhD Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment |
| title | Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy |
| title_full | Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy |
| title_fullStr | Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy |
| title_short | Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy |
| title_sort | sensitivity of three patient specific quality assurance systems to mlc aperture errors with volumetric modulated arc therapy |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338221114499 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jinyouhums sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT shaoxiangums sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT ningyuwangms sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT fengjiecuims sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT shengyuanzhangms sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT chuouyinms sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT yunzhucaims sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT chengjungouphd sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT lianzouphd sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy AT zhangwenwuphd sensitivityofthreepatientspecificqualityassurancesystemstomlcapertureerrorswithvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy |