Skip to main content

Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines

A multi-institutional survey

Patientenbezogene Qualitätssicherung mit unterschiedlichen Kombinationen von Planungssystemen, Techniken und Geräten

Eine multiinstitutionelle Studie

Strahlentherapie und Onkologie volume 193, pages 46–54 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This project compares the different patient-related quality assurance systems for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques currently used in the central Germany area with an independent measuring system.

Materials and methods

The participating institutions generated 21 treatment plans with different combinations of treatment planning systems (TPS) and linear accelerators (LINAC) for the QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology) patient model. The plans were exposed to the ArcCHECK measuring system (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA). The dose distributions were analyzed using the corresponding software and a point dose measured at the isocenter with an ionization chamber.

Results

According to the generally used criteria of a 10 % threshold, 3 % difference, and 3 mm distance, the majority of plans investigated showed a gamma index exceeding 95 %. Only one plan did not fulfill the criteria and three of the plans did not comply with the commonly accepted tolerance level of ±3 % in point dose measurement.

Conclusion

Using only one of the two examined methods for patient-related quality assurance is not sufficiently significant in all cases.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Im Rahmen des Projekts sollten die verschiedenen derzeit im mitteldeutschen Raum eingesetzten patientenbezogenen Qualitätssicherungssysteme zur intensitätsmodulierten Radiotherapie (IMRT) und volumenmodulierten Arc-Radiotherapie (VMAT) mit einem unabhängigen Messsystem verglichen werden.

Material und Methoden

Die teilnehmenden Einrichtungen berechneten insgesamt 21 Bestrahlungspläne mit verschiedenen Planungssystemen (TPS) und Linearbeschleunigern (LINAC) für das Patientenmodell QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology), die dann auf das ArcCHECK-Phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) übertragen und abgestrahlt wurden. Zur Auswertung wurde sowohl eine Punktmessung im Isozentrum als auch die Dosisverteilung in der Diodenebene des Messphantoms betrachtet.

Ergebnisse

Nach den allgemein üblichen Kriterien von 10 %-Schwellenwert, 3 %-Abweichung und 3‑mm-Abstand zeigten die meisten Pläne dieser Studie einen Gamma-Index größer 95 %, lediglich ein Plan erfüllte diese Kriterien nicht. Bei der Dosispunktmessung lagen drei Pläne außerhalb der üblichen Toleranz der 3 %-Abweichung.

Schlussfolgerung

Für die patientenbezogene Qualitätssicherung ist die Punktmessung der Dosis oder die alleinige Gammaanalyse zur Planverifizierung nicht in allen Fällen ausreichend signifikant.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Feygelman V, Zhang G, Stevens C, Nelms BE (2011) Evaluation of a new VMAT QA device, or the “X” and “O” array geometries. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12(2):3346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelms BE, Simon JA (2007) A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys 8(3):2448

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta JR, Ramsey CR, Salter BJ, Shi J, Xia P, Yue NJ, Xiao Y (2009) IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 36(11):5359–5373

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hussein M, Rowshanfarzad P, Ebert MA, Nisbet A, Clark CH (2013) A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems. Radiother Oncol 109(3):370–376. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.048

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M (2011) Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys 38(3):1313–1338

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DIN 6875-3:2008-03 Spezielle Bestrahlungseinrichtungen – Teil 3: Fluenzmodulierte Strahlentherapie – Kennmerkmale, Prüfmethoden und Regeln für den klinischen Einsatz.

  7. DIN 6875-4:2011-10 Spezielle Bestrahlungseinrichtungen – Teil 4: Fluenzmodulierte Strahlentherapie – Konstanzprüfungen.

  8. DIN 6800-2:2008-03 Dosismessverfahren nach der Sondenmethode für Photonen- und Elektronenstrahlung – Teil 2: Dosimetrie hochenergetischer Photonen- und Elektronenstrahlung mit Ionisationskammern.

  9. Ibbott GS, Haworth A, Followill DS (2013) Quality assurance for clinical trials. Front Oncol 3:311. doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00311

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jornet N, Carrasco P, Beltran M, Calvo JF, Escude L, Hernandez V, Quera J, Saez J (2014) Multicentre validation of IMRT pre-treatment verification: comparison of in-house and external audit. Radiother Oncol 112(3):381–388. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.06.016

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kry SF, Molineu A, Kerns JR, Faught AM, Huang JY, Pulliam KB, Tonigan J, Alvarez P, Stingo F, Followill DS (2014) Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 90(5):1195–1201. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.334

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McKenzie EM, Balter PA, Stingo FC, Jones J, Followill DS, Kry SF (2014) Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(3):4741. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v15i3.4741

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bohsung J, Gillis S, Arrans R, Bakai A, De Wagter C, Knoos T, Mijnheer BJ, Paiusco M, Perrin BA, Welleweerd H, Williams P (2005) IMRT treatment planning: a comparative inter-system and inter-centre planning exercise of the ESTRO QUASIMODO group. Radiother Oncol 76(3):354–361. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.08.003

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Followill DS, Urie M, Galvin JM, Ulin K, Xiao Y, Fitzgerald TJ (2012) Credentialing for participation in clinical trials. Front Oncol 2:198. doi:10.3389/fonc.2012.00198

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li G, Bai S, Chen N, Henderson L, Wu K, Xiao J, Zhang Y, Jiang Q, Jiang X (2013) 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 Appl Clin Med Phys 14(5):13–24. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.3828

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chaswal V, Weldon M, Gupta N, Chakravarti A, Rong Y (2014) Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(4):4832. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4832

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li G, Zhang Y, Jiang X, Bai S, Peng G, Wu K, Jiang Q (2013) Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med 29(3):295–303. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.04.005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Neilson C, Klein M, Barnett R, Yartsev S (2013) Delivery quality assurance with ArcCHECK. Med Dosim 38(1):77–80. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2012.07.004

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vieillevigne L, Molinier J, Brun T, Ferrand R (2015) Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors. Phys Med 31(7):720–725. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.05.016

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun Nuclear Corporation (2012) ArcCHECK Reference Guide.

  21. IAEA (2000) TRS No. 398 Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy.

  22. Zakaria A, Schuette W, Younan C (2011) Reference dosimetry according to the New German Protocol DIN 6800-2 and comparison with IAEA TRS 398 and AAPM TG 51. Biomed Imaging Interv J 7(2):e15. doi:10.2349/biij.7.2.e15

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Munjal RK, Negi PS, Babu AG, Sinha SN, Anand AK, Kataria T (2006) Impact of 6MV photon beam attenuation by carbon fiber couch and immobilization devices in IMRT planning and dose delivery. J Med Phys 31(2):67–71. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.26690

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Olch AJ, Gerig L, Li H, Mihaylov I, Morgan A (2014) Dosimetric effects caused by couch tops and immobilization devices: report of AAPM Task Group 176. Med Phys 41(6):061501. doi:10.1118/1.4876299

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pulliam KB, Howell RM, Followill D, Luo D, White RA, Kry SF (2011) The clinical impact of the couch top and rails on IMRT and arc therapy. Phys Med Biol 56(23):7435–7447. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/23/007

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pulliam KB, Followill D, Court L, Dong L, Gillin M, Prado K, Kry SF (2014) A six-year review of more than 13,000 patient-specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(5):4935. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4935

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Gillis S, De Wagter C, Bohsung J, Perrin B, Williams P, Mijnheer BJ (2005) An inter-centre quality assurance network for IMRT verification: results of the ESTRO QUASIMODO project. Radiother Oncol 76(3):340–353. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.06.021

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Melidis C, Bosch WR, Izewska J, Fidarova E, Zubizarreta E, Ishikura S, Followill D, Galvin J, Xiao Y, Ebert MA, Kron T, Clark CH, Miles EA, Aird EG, Weber DC, Ulin K, Verellen D, Hurkmans CW (2014) Radiation therapy quality assurance in clinical trials – Global Harmonisation Group. Radiother Oncol 111(3):327–329. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.03.023

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, Sapino V, Gabriele P (2012) Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys 39(12):7626–7634. doi:10.1118/1.4767763

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pasler M, Wirtz H, Lutterbach J (2011) Impact of gantry rotation time on plan quality and dosimetric verification-volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol 187(12):812–819. doi:10.1007/s00066-011-2263-1

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA (2011) Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys 38(2):1037–1044. doi:10.1118/1.3544657

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W (2013) On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys 40(3):031702. doi:10.1118/1.4789580

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

BS conceived the study, acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data, reviewed the literature and wrote the manuscript. RB, SE, CK, KL, TP, CR, JS, DS, SP, MW, and UW created the treatment plans and supported the measurements in the participating institutions. MS and KW were involved in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and assisted with drafting the manuscript. TW was responsible for coordinating the study, edited the manuscript, and performed a critical revision of scientific content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Beatrice Steiniger, Michael Schwedas, Kirsten Weibert & Tilo Wiezorek

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Hospital Gera, Straße des Friedens 122, 07548, Gera, Germany

    René Berger

  3. Radiation therapy Berlin southwest, site Martin-Luther-Hospital, Caspar-Theyß-Straße 33, 14193, Berlin, Germany

    Sabine Eilzer

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle, Ernst-Grube-Straße 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Christine Kornhuber

  5. Department for Radiation Oncology, Hospital of Chemnitz, Bürgerstraße 2, 09113, Chemnitz, Germany

    Kathleen Lorenz

  6. MVZ Center for Radiation Oncology Halle GmbH, Niemeyerstraße 24, 06110, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Torsten Peil

  7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01304, Dresden, Germany

    Carsten Reiffenstuhl

  8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Helios Hospital Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 74, 99089, Erfurt, Germany

    Johannes Schilz

  9. Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Central Hospital Suhl, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 2, 98527, Suhl, Germany

    Dirk Schröder

  10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Community Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Friedrichstraße 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany

    Stephanie Pensold

  11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Mathias Walke

  12. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Ulrich Wolf

Authors
  1. Beatrice Steiniger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. René Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabine Eilzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Kornhuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kathleen Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Torsten Peil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carsten Reiffenstuhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Schilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dirk Schröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael Schwedas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stephanie Pensold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Mathias Walke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Kirsten Weibert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ulrich Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Tilo Wiezorek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice Steiniger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

B. Steiniger, R. Berger, S. Eilzer, C. Kornhuber, K. Lorenz, T. Peil, C. Reiffenstuhl, J. Schilz, D. Schröder, M. Schwedas, S. Pensold, M. Walke, K. Weibert, U. Wolf, and T. Wiezorek declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steiniger, B., Berger, R., Eilzer, S. et al. Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines. Strahlenther Onkol 193, 46–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-016-1064-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-016-1064-y

Keywords

  • Radiotherapy, intensity-modulated
  • Linear accelerators
  • Radiation oncology
  • Organs at risk
  • Calibration

Schlüsselwörter

  • Intensitätsmodulierte Strahlentherapie
  • Linearbeschleuniger
  • Strahlenonkologie
  • Risikoorgane
  • Kalibrierung