A retrospective analysis for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans

A TPS integrated machine learning tool for predicting patient-specific quality assurance outcomes in volumetric-modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE

Machine learning (ML) models have been demonstrated to be beneficial for optimizing the workload of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). Implementing them in clinical routine frequently requires third-party applications beyond the treatment planning system (TPS), slowing down the workflow. To address this issue, a PSQA outcomes predictive model was carefully selected and validated before being fully integrated into the TPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine ML algorithms were evaluated using cross-validation. The learning database was built by calculating complexity metrics (CM) and binarizing PSQA results into "pass"/"fail" classes for 1767 VMAT arcs. The predictive performance was evaluated using area under the ROC curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity. The ML model was integrated into the TPS via a C# script. Script-guided reoptimization impact on PSQA and dosimetric results was evaluated on ten VMAT plans with "fail"-predicted arcs. Workload reduction potential was also assessed.

RESULTS

The selected model exhibited an AUROC of 0.88, with a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 50 % and 90 %, respectively. The script-guided reoptimization of the ten evaluated plans led to an average improvement of 1.4 ± 0.9 percentage points in PSQA results, while preserving the quality of the dose distribution. A yearly savings of about 140 h with the use of the script was estimated.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed script is a valuable complementary tool for PSQA measurement. It was efficiently integrated into the clinical workflow to enhance PSQA outcomes and reduce PSQA workload by decreasing the risk of failing QA and thereby, the need for repeated replanning and measurements.

[Utility of Point Dose Verification Using Measured Ionization Amount Ratio of Reference Irradiation to Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy]

In the point dose verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), we compared the commonly used method of measuring absolute dose (absolute method) with the measurement method by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119, which describes the point dose verification for IMRT using the ratio of reference irradiation and measured ionization. The target was 66 plans for head and neck cancer, 46 plans for lung cancer with 6 MV X-ray, and 31 plans for prostate cancer with 10 MV X-ray. They were treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Each plan was evaluated by the absolute method and the TG119 method using 3D-array. The average and 2SD of the verification results for head and neck cancer, lung cancer, and prostate cancer were 0.129±2.185%, 0.963±2.125%, and 0.259±2.019% by the absolute method, and 0.952±2.039%, 1.704±2.080%, and 0.524±1.274% by the TG119 method. The ratio between the average of the TG119 method and the absolute method corresponded to the error of reference irradiation dose. Considering that the measurement method is simple, the TG119 method enables more stable point dose verification of VMAT.

Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery systems using automated planning

BACKGROUND

To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit (MU) efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS

Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with the Auto-Planning module for the Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations were used for each site in the two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. The beam complexity was evaluated in terms of the segment area (SA), segment width (SW), leaf sequence variability (LSV), aperture area variability (AAV), and modulation complexity score (MCS) based on the multileaf collimator sequence and MU. Plan delivery and a gamma evaluation were performed using a helical diode array.

RESULTS

With similar plan quality, the average SAs for the Trilogy plans were smaller than those for the Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for the two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87 ± 1.95 cm vs. 6.72 ± 2.71 cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84 ± 2.56 cm vs. 8.09 ± 2.63 cm, p < 0.05). The LSV was significantly smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84 ± 0.033 vs. 0.86 ± 0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89 ± 0.026 vs. 0.90 ± 0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was significantly larger for Trilogy than for Synergy (NPC: 0.18 ± 0.064 vs. 0.14 ± 0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46 ± 0.15 vs. 0.33 ± 0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for Trilogy were higher than those for Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016 vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with the Synergy plans, the average MUs for the Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6 ± 74.1 MU and 782.9 ± 85.2 MU (p > 0.05) for the NPC cases and 444.8 ± 61.3 MU and 393.8 ± 75.3 MU (p > 0.05) for the BC cases. The gamma index agreement scores were never below 91% using 3 mm/3% (global) distance to agreement and dose difference criteria and a 10% lower dose exclusion threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to achieve the same plan quality using both the Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that these two systems resulted in different SAs, SWs, LSVs, AAVs and MCSs. As a result, we suggested that the beam complexity should be considered in the development of further methodologies while optimizing VMAT autoplanning.

Description and evaluation of a new volumetric-modulated arc therapy plan complexity metric

This study describes a new plan complexity metric for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and evaluates the relationship of this metric with the VMAT dosimetric accuracy. The new modulation complexity score for VMAT (NMCSv) that is based on the aperture shape and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf travel is described. Its performance is evaluated through correlation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses with patient-specific gamma passing rates using 2 3-dimensional diode arrays. For comparison, the following metrics are evaluated using the same correlation analyses: average field width, average leaf travel, modulation complexity score, and leaf travel modulation complexity score. Spearman's rank correlation analysis is performed to examine any relationships between the complexity metrics and the patient-specific gamma passing rates. ROC curves are used to assess the performance of the plan metrics using a gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm criterion with a 95% tolerance level. In both the diode arrays, the gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm) for patient-specific dosimetric verification of VMAT plans are moderately or weakly correlated to all the complexity metrics. NMCSv demonstrates the highest correlation with the passing rates (r = 0.652, p < 0.001 for Delta4 and r = 0.499, p < 0.001 for ArcCheck) and the highest area under the curve value (0.809, p < 0.01 for Delta4 and 0.734, p < 0.01 for ArcCheck). While using the Delta4 system, NMCSv exhibits an excellent classification performance with area under the curves of 0.926 (sensitivity: 0.913; specificity: 0.860; p < 0.01) and 0.918 (sensitivity: 0.943; specificity: 0.720; p < 0.01) for rectal and cervical cancer plans, respectively. NMCSv as a novel potential clinical plan complexity metric is moderately correlated with the gamma passing rate. It demonstrates the best performance with respect to distinguishing the dosimetric accuracy of VMAT plans among the evaluated metrics. The classification performance of complexity metrics can be affected by various dosimetry verification devices and treatment sites.

Quantified VMAT plan complexity in relation to measurement-based quality assurance results

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans that are highly modulated or complex may result in disagreements between the planned dose distribution and the measured dose distribution. This study investigated established VMAT complexity metrics as a means of predicting phantom‐based measurement results for 93 treatments delivered on a TrueBeam linac, and 91 treatments delivered on two TrueBeam STx linacs. Complexity metrics investigated showed weak correlations to gamma passing rate, with the exception of the Modulation Complexity Score for VMAT, yielding moderate correlations. The Spearman’s rho values for this metric were 0.502 (P < 0.001) and 0.528 (P < 0.001) for the TrueBeam and TrueBeam STx, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was also performed. The aperture irregularity on the TrueBeam achieved a 53% true positive rate and a 9% false‐positive rate to correctly identify complex plans. Similarly, the average field width on the TrueBeam STx achieved a 60% true‐positive rate and an 8% false‐positive rate. If incorporated into clinical workflow, these thresholds can identify highly modulated plans and reduce the number of dose verification measurements required.

A remote EPID-based dosimetric TPS-planned audit of centers for clinical trials: outcomes and analysis of contributing factors

Background

A novel remote method for external dosimetric TPS-planned auditing of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for clinical trials using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has been developed. The audit has been applied to multiple centers across Australia and New Zealand. This work aims to assess the audit outcomes and explores the variables that contributed to the audit results.

Methods

Thirty audits were performed of 21 radiotherapy facilities, 17 facilities underwent IMRT audits and 13 underwent VMAT audits. The assessment was based on comparisons between the delivered doses derived from images acquired with EPIDs and planned doses from the local treatment planning systems (TPS). Gamma pass-rate (GPR) and gamma mean value (GMV) were calculated for each IMRT field and VMAT arc (total 268 comparisons). A multiple variable linear model was applied to the GMV results (3%/3 mm criteria) to assess the influence and significance of explanatory variables. The explanatory variables were Linac-TPS combination, TPS grid resolution, IMRT/VMAT delivery, age of EPID, treatment site, record and verification system (R&V) type and dose-rate. Finally, the audit results were compared with other recent audits by calculating the incidence ratio (IR) as a ratio of the observed mean/median GPRs for the remote audit to the other audits.

Results

The average (± 1 SD) of the centers’ GPRs were: 99.3 ± 1.9%, 98.6 ± 2.7% & 96.2 ± 5.5% at 3%, 3 mm, 3%, 2 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria respectively. The most determinative variables on the GMVs were Linac-TPS combination, TPS grid resolution and IMRT/VMAT delivery type. The IR values were 1 for seven comparisons, indicating similar GPRs of the remote audit with the reference audits and > 1 for four comparisons, indicating higher GPRs of the remote audit than the reference audits.

Conclusion

The remote dosimetry audit method for clinical trials demonstrated high GPRs and provided results comparable to established more resource-intensive audit methods. Several factors were found to influence the results including some effect of Linac-TPS combination.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1125-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dynamic positioning accuracy of a novel multileaf collimator for volumetric modulated arc therapy

We investigated the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility (Elekta) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The accuracy of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position during VMAT was evaluated using three different tests: (1) a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) output test with various leaf speeds, and gantry angles; (2) a slit-fence test with and without gantry rotation; and (3) a complicated VMAT plans test with dose distributions compared with measurements using gamma analysis. The DMLC output was within 1.5 % under all test conditions. The agreement between the static and VMAT in the slit-fence test was within 0.5 mm. The pass rate of each complicated VMAT test plan was more than 93.9 % ± 0.36 for gamma analysis. We confirmed the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility, which during VMAT delivery is within VMAT tolerances. The fastest MLC was found to have the potential to offer clinical advantages, such as high-quality rapid VMAT.