Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results
- 444 Downloads
The planning of IMRT treatments requires a compromise between dose conformity (complexity) and deliverability. This study investigates established and novel treatment complexity metrics for 122 IMRT beams from prostate treatment plans. The Treatment and Dose Assessor software was used to extract the necessary data from exported treatment plan files and calculate the metrics. For most of the metrics, there was strong overlap between the calculated values for plans that passed and failed their quality assurance (QA) tests. However, statistically significant variation between plans that passed and failed QA measurements was found for the established modulation index and for a novel metric describing the proportion of small apertures in each beam. The ‘small aperture score’ provided threshold values which successfully distinguished deliverable treatment plans from plans that did not pass QA, with a low false negative rate.
KeywordsQuality assurance Beam complexity Radiation therapy
- 1.Purdy JA, Boyer AL, Butler EB, Dipetrillo TA, Engler MJ, Fraass B, Grant W III, Ling CC, Low DA, Mackie TR, Mohan R, Roach M, Rosenman JG, Verhey LJ, Wong JW, Cumberlin RL, Stone H, Palta JR (2001) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(4):880–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Tonigan JR (2011) Evaluation of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery error due to IMRT treatment plan complexity and improperly matched dosimetry data. Master’s Thesis, University of TexasGoogle Scholar
- 18.Brainlab AG (2010) Brainlab physics technical reference guide. Revision 1:2Google Scholar
- 21.Crowe SB, Kairn T, Middlebrook N, Bill B, Christie DRH, Knight RT, Kenny J, Langton CM, Trapp JV (2013) Retrospective evaluation of dosimetric quality for prostate carcinomas treated with 3D conformal, intensity-modulated and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy. J Med Radiat Sci 60(4):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar