[an error occurred while processing this directive] | [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Sensitivity evaluation of ArcCheck in detecting leaf open time errors of helical tomotherapy delivery
Yue Qi1, Duan Jimei1, Xiao Bin2, Wang Zhiwei1, Zhang Yue1, Yang Xiumei1, Gu Dan1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650032, China; 2School of Materials and Energy, Yunnan University, Kunming 650032, China
AbstractObjective To evaluate the sensitivity of the ArcCheck dosimetry system in detecting the leaf open time errors during the center and off-center helical tomotheray delivery quality assurance (DQA). Methods Nine nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients were selected in this study. Two DQA plans were created for each patient:the"center" plan was created by moving the image of the ArcCheck phantom to place the high dose region on the phantom center and the "off-center" plan was created by offsetting the phantom and putting several diodes through a higher does region. Leaf open time errors of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 ms were introduced to the Sinogram which was modified using Matlab. Each intentional error plan and original (no error) plan for each patient were measured using both "center" and "off-center" DQA methods, the γ analysis was performed to evaluate the DQA results. The different dose and distance error criteria of 3%/3 mm,3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm were selected, and different thresholds of 5%,10% and 15% were selected for γ analysis. The gradient and the minimum detectable error approach were taken to quantitatively analyze the sensitivity. The correlation between different dose distance error criteria and different thresholds was also evaluated by Pearson correlation analysis. Results The absolute value of γ gradient of the "center" DQA plans were larger than those of the "off-center" plans in all different γ criteria (all P<0.05). The stricter the γ criteria were adopted, the more sensitive DQA results of leaf open time error were obtained. The minimum detectable error was 2 ms in all different γ criteria for the "center" DQA plan. The minimum error detectability of the "off-center" DQA plan was weaker than that of the "center" DQA plan. The γ passing rates of three different dose distance error criteria were significantlystronglycorrelated for the "center" DQA plan (R2>0.9). For the "off-center " DQA plan, only the 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm criteria were significantlystrongly correlated (R2>0.9). Significantstrongcorrelation was observed in the γ passing rate at different thresholds between the "off-center" and "center" DQA plans. Conclusions The "center" DQA plan method is more sensitive than the "off-center" DQA plan method in all γ criteria, and the γ passing rates in different γ criteria are strongly correlated for the "center" DQA plan. The "center" DQA plan method is recommended.
Yue Qi,Duan Jimei,Xiao Bin et al. Sensitivity evaluation of ArcCheck in detecting leaf open time errors of helical tomotherapy delivery[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2021, 30(5): 492-497.
Yue Qi,Duan Jimei,Xiao Bin et al. Sensitivity evaluation of ArcCheck in detecting leaf open time errors of helical tomotherapy delivery[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2021, 30(5): 492-497.
[1] Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, et al. Tomotherapy:a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy[J]. Med Phys, 1993, 20(6):1709-1719. DOI:10.1118/1.596958. [2] Fenwick JD, Tomé WA, Jaradat HA, et al. Quality assurance of a helical tomotherapy machine[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2004, 49(13):2933-2953. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/49/13/012. [3] Langen KM, Papanikolaou N, Balog J, et al. QA for helical tomotherapy:report of the AAPM task group 148[J]. Med Phys, 2010, 37(9):4817-4853. DOI:10.1118/1.3462971. [4] Catuzzo P, Zenone F, Aimonetto S, et al. Technical note:patient-specific quality assurance methods for TomoDirect (TM) whole breast treatment delivery[J]. Med Phys, 2012, 39(7):4073-4078. DOI:10.1118/1.4722967. [5] Thiyagarajan R, Nambiraj A, Sinha SN, et al. Analyzing the performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for VMAT plan[J]. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2016, 21(1):50-56. DOI:10.1016/j.rpor.2015.10.004. [6] Neilson C, Klein M, Barnett R, et al. Delivery quality assurance with ArcCHECK[J]. Med Dosim, 2013, 38(1):77-80. DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2012.07.004. [7] Templeton AK, Chu JC, Turian JV. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2015, 16(1):4814. DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.4814. [8] Deshpande S, Geurts M, Vial P, et al. Sensitivity evaluation of two commercial dosimeters in detecting helical tomotherapy treatment delivery errors[J]. Phys Med, 2017, 37:68-74. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.011. [9] Bresciani S, Di Dia A, Maggio A, et al. Tomotherapy treatment plan quality assurance:the impact of applied criteria on passing rate in gamma index method[J]. Med Phys, 2013, 40(12):121711. DOI:10.1118/1.4829515. [10] Bresciani S, Miranti A, Di Dia A, et al. A pre-treatment quality assurance survey on 384 patients treated with helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2016, 118(3):574-576. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.12.021. [11] Arumugam S, Xing A, Young T, et al. Sensitivity of a helical diode array dosimeter to volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery errors[J]. Phys Med, 2015, 31(8):1043-1054. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.011. [12] Liang B, Liu B, Zhou F, et al. Comparisons of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) systems:sensitivity analysis to machine errors[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2016, 11(1):146. DOI:10.1186/s13014-016-0725-4. [13] Li G, Bai S, Chen N, et al. Evaluation of the sensitivity of two 3D diode array dosimetry systems to setup error for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2013, 14(5):13-24. DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.3828. [14] Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA:recommendations of AAPM task group No. 218[J]. Med Phys, 2018, 45(4):e53-e83. DOI:10.1002/mp.12810. [15] Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions[J]. Med Phys, 1998, 25(5):656-661. DOI:10.1118/1.598248. [16] Song JH, Kim MJ, Park SH, et al. Gamma analysis dependence on specified low-dose thresholds for VMAT QA[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2015, 16(6):263-272. DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5696.
2021, Vol. 30 
