Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records
Objective: A procedure has been proposed for patient-specific QA that, instead of comparing a measurement to the planned dose, compares the dose calculated by an independent system to the dose calculated by the planning system. It is still prudent, however, to check the accuracy of the beam delivery...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Radiation Medicine and Protection |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555722000405 |
| _version_ | 1797761724905947136 |
|---|---|
| author | Z. Chen M.F. Moyers Y. Deng H.L. Chen J. Li Z.M. Shen J. Lin Q. Wang P. Yepes |
| author_facet | Z. Chen M.F. Moyers Y. Deng H.L. Chen J. Li Z.M. Shen J. Lin Q. Wang P. Yepes |
| author_sort | Z. Chen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: A procedure has been proposed for patient-specific QA that, instead of comparing a measurement to the planned dose, compares the dose calculated by an independent system to the dose calculated by the planning system. It is still prudent, however, to check the accuracy of the beam delivery. For this purpose, the DICOM records from the first treatment fraction can be compared to the planned treatment using an in-house developed planning system. Methods: Totally 1,398 patient portals were subjected to the new QA procedure. The dose distribution for each portal was first recalculated on a water phantom by two treatment planning systems and the dose distributions were compared. When agreement was observed, the patient was allowed to start treatment without a measurement. The record from the first day was imported into an in-house planning system which was used to evaluate the delivery for errors and calculate the delivered dose distribution and compare it to the planned dose distribution. Results: A total of 266 portals passed a strict comparison between the clinical and QA dose calculations and directly used for treatment without measurements. For those portals, the comparison of the delivery records to the plan showed that 99% of spot positions deviated less than 0.2 mm and 99.7% of spot metersets deviated by less than 0.3%. On the other hand, 64 portals showed spot size deviations greater than the tolerance of ± 15% with some as large as ±25%. For 32 portals in which the record was used to calculate the delivered dose distribution, the Gamma passing rates between the planned and delivered distributions were always above 95% using a 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement criteria. Conclusions: The new QA process has been implemented slowly with strict constraints. The amount of beam time required has been reduced while maintaining safety. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T19:17:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a14dd3b5648e488dae88362d91eec6f6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2666-5557 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T19:17:11Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiation Medicine and Protection |
| spelling | doaj.art-a14dd3b5648e488dae88362d91eec6f62023-08-02T05:27:28ZengElsevierRadiation Medicine and Protection2666-55572022-09-0133123130Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment recordsZ. Chen0M.F. Moyers1Y. Deng2H.L. Chen3J. Li4Z.M. Shen5J. Lin6Q. Wang7P. Yepes8Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaShanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, China; Corresponding author.Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaShanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaShanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaShanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaShanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Proton and Heavy Ion Radiation Therapy, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai 201315, ChinaRice University, Houston, TX, United StatesRice University, Houston, TX, United StatesObjective: A procedure has been proposed for patient-specific QA that, instead of comparing a measurement to the planned dose, compares the dose calculated by an independent system to the dose calculated by the planning system. It is still prudent, however, to check the accuracy of the beam delivery. For this purpose, the DICOM records from the first treatment fraction can be compared to the planned treatment using an in-house developed planning system. Methods: Totally 1,398 patient portals were subjected to the new QA procedure. The dose distribution for each portal was first recalculated on a water phantom by two treatment planning systems and the dose distributions were compared. When agreement was observed, the patient was allowed to start treatment without a measurement. The record from the first day was imported into an in-house planning system which was used to evaluate the delivery for errors and calculate the delivered dose distribution and compare it to the planned dose distribution. Results: A total of 266 portals passed a strict comparison between the clinical and QA dose calculations and directly used for treatment without measurements. For those portals, the comparison of the delivery records to the plan showed that 99% of spot positions deviated less than 0.2 mm and 99.7% of spot metersets deviated by less than 0.3%. On the other hand, 64 portals showed spot size deviations greater than the tolerance of ± 15% with some as large as ±25%. For 32 portals in which the record was used to calculate the delivered dose distribution, the Gamma passing rates between the planned and delivered distributions were always above 95% using a 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement criteria. Conclusions: The new QA process has been implemented slowly with strict constraints. The amount of beam time required has been reduced while maintaining safety.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555722000405Ion beamQuality assuranceMonte CarloDICOM |
| spellingShingle | Z. Chen M.F. Moyers Y. Deng H.L. Chen J. Li Z.M. Shen J. Lin Q. Wang P. Yepes Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records Radiation Medicine and Protection Ion beam Quality assurance Monte Carlo DICOM |
| title | Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records |
| title_full | Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records |
| title_fullStr | Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records |
| title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records |
| title_short | Analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using DICOM treatment records |
| title_sort | analysis of delivery and recalculation of dose using dicom treatment records |
| topic | Ion beam Quality assurance Monte Carlo DICOM |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555722000405 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zchen analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT mfmoyers analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT ydeng analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT hlchen analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT jli analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT zmshen analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT jlin analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT qwang analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords AT pyepes analysisofdeliveryandrecalculationofdoseusingdicomtreatmentrecords |