Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods

Dewayne L. Defoor, Sotirios Stathakis, Joseph E. Roring, Neil Kirby, Panayiotis Mavroidis, Mohammad Obeidat, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4®, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)172-179
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

Error detection
assurance
collimators
Quality assurance
files
Imaging techniques
Equipment and Supplies
electronics
ROC Curve
planning
dosage
Planning
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
thresholds
standard deviation
receivers
gantry cranes
Measurement errors
error analysis
Error analysis

Keywords

  • IMRT
  • QA Error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods. / Defoor, Dewayne L.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Roring, Joseph E.; Kirby, Neil; Mavroidis, Panayiotis; Obeidat, Mohammad; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 18, No. 4, 01.07.2017, p. 172-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Defoor, Dewayne L. ; Stathakis, Sotirios ; Roring, Joseph E. ; Kirby, Neil ; Mavroidis, Panayiotis ; Obeidat, Mohammad ; Papanikolaou, Nikos. / Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods. In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2017 ; Vol. 18, No. 4. pp. 172-179.
@article{d40752ecf96841e2854120c440444b78,
title = "Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods",
abstract = "A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4{\circledR}, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95{\%} pass rate at 3{\%}/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27{\%} for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47{\%} for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47{\%} for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.",
keywords = "IMRT, QA Error",
author = "Defoor, {Dewayne L.} and Sotirios Stathakis and Roring, {Joseph E.} and Neil Kirby and Panayiotis Mavroidis and Mohammad Obeidat and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12114",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "172--179",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods

AU - Defoor, Dewayne L.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Roring, Joseph E.

AU - Kirby, Neil

AU - Mavroidis, Panayiotis

AU - Obeidat, Mohammad

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4®, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.

AB - A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4®, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47% for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.

KW - IMRT

KW - QA Error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020202092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020202092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12114

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12114

M3 - Article

C2 - 28585300

AN - SCOPUS:85020202092

VL - 18

SP - 172

EP - 179

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 4

ER -