Document Detail

Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23032423     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
This study aims to evaluate the use of Varian radiotherapy dynamic treatment log (DynaLog) files to verify IMRT plan delivery as part of a routine quality assurance procedure. Delivery accuracy in terms of machine performance was quantified by multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors and fluence delivery accuracy for patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment. The relationship between machine performance and plan complexity, quantified by the modulation complexity score (MCS) was also investigated. Actual MLC positions and delivered fraction of monitor units (MU), recorded every 50 ms during IMRT delivery, were extracted from the DynaLog files. The planned MLC positions and fractional MU were taken from the record and verify system MLC control file. Planned and delivered beam data were compared to determine leaf position errors with and without the overshoot effect. Analysis was also performed on planned and actual fluence maps reconstructed from the MLC control file and delivered treatment log files respectively. This analysis was performed for all treatment fractions for 5 prostate, 5 prostate and pelvic node (PPN) and 5 head and neck (H&N) IMRT plans, totalling 82 IMRT fields in ∼5500 DynaLog files. The root mean square (RMS) leaf position errors without the overshoot effect were 0.09, 0.26, 0.19 mm for the prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively, which increased to 0.30, 0.39 and 0.30 mm when the overshoot effect was considered. Average errors were not affected by the overshoot effect and were 0.05, 0.13 and 0.17 mm for prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively. The percentage of pixels passing fluence map gamma analysis at 3%/3 mm was 99.94 ± 0.25%, which reduced to 91.62 ± 11.39% at 1%/1 mm criterion. Leaf position errors, but not gamma passing rate, were directly related to plan complexity as determined by the MCS. Site specific confidence intervals for average leaf position errors were set at -0.03-0.12 mm for prostate and -0.02-0.28 mm for more complex PPN and H&N plans. For all treatment sites confidence intervals for RMS errors with the overshoot was set at 0-0.50 mm and for the percentage of pixels passing a gamma analysis at 1%/1 mm a confidence interval of 68.83% was set also for all treatment sites. This work demonstrates the successful implementation of treatment log files to validate IMRT deliveries and how dynamic log files can diagnose delivery errors not possible with phantom based QC. Machine performance was found to be directly related to plan complexity but this is not the dominant determinant of delivery accuracy.
C E Agnew; R B King; A R Hounsell; C K McGarry
Related Documents :
24518583 - Snijders's correction of infit and outfit indexes with estimated ability level: an anal...
24887043 - Precise calibration of a gnss antenna array for adaptive beamforming applications.
1747083 - A mathematical study of non-newtonian blood flow through elastic arteries.
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2012-10-03
Journal Detail:
Title:  Physics in medicine and biology     Volume:  57     ISSN:  1361-6560     ISO Abbreviation:  Phys Med Biol     Publication Date:  2012 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-10-3     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0401220     Medline TA:  Phys Med Biol     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  6761-6777     Citation Subset:  -    
Radiotherapy Physics Department, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, BT9 7AB.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  The influence of HLA supertype on thymidine analogue-associated with low peripheral fat in HIV.
Next Document:  Issues in mHealth: findings from key informant interviews.