Advertisement

Validation of the Mobius system for patient-specific quality assurance using introduced intentional errors

  • Ivy Win Long AuEmail author
  • Laura Ciurlionis
  • Neil Campbell
  • Daniel Goodwin
Scientific Note

Abstract

Mobius3D and MobiusFX are model-based verification tools for treatment plan dose calculation and treatment delivery. The software facilitates patient-specific quality assurance by extracting data from linear accelerator treatment log files and performing a 3D dose calculation on the original patient CT dataset using an independent collapsed cone algorithm. In this study, we evaluate the ability of the Mobius system to detect linear accelerator-related errors compared with existing measurement-based systems, namely the ArcCHECK® and 3DVH® systems. Three original treatment plans and 47 plans with introduced delivery errors, for a total of 50 plan deliveries, were investigated. The results from this study demonstrated comparable gamma passing rates and error detectability between the Mobius and ArcCHECK® systems while the 3DVH system generally exhibited a lower sensitivity. This work also demonstrated the ability of the Mobius system to detect delivery errors of down to 2° collimator rotation, 1 mm MLC bank offset and 10 mm collimator jaw offset.

Keywords

Patient specific QA Treatment verification VMAT Gamma analysis Introduced errors Mobius ArcCHECK 3DVH 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. 1.
    Teoh M, Clark C, Wood K, Whitaker S, Nisbet A (2011) Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 84:967–996CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Low D, Harms W, Mutic S, Purdy J (1998) A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25:656–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ceberg C (2013) A note on the interpretation of the gamma evaluation index. J Phys Conf Ser 444:012082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ezzell G, Burmeister J, Dogan N, LoSasso T, Mechalakos J, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta J, Ramsey C, Salter B, Shi J, Xia P, Yue N, Xiao Y (2009) IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM TG-11. Med Phys 36(11):5359–5373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zygmanski P, Kung J (2001) Method of identifying dynamic multileaf collimator irradiation that is highly sensitive to a systematic MLC calibration error. Med Phys 25(11):2220–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masi L, Loranzo L (2013) Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys 40(7):071718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Childress N, Chen Q, Rong Y (2015) Parallel/opposed: IMRT QA using treatment log files is superior to conventional measurement-based method. J Appl Clin Med Phys. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5385 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaswal V, Weldon M, Gupta G, 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. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4832 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan M, Li J, Schupak K, Chandra B (2014) Using a novel dose QA tool to quantify the impact of systematic errors otherwise undetected by conventional QA methods: clinical head and neck case studies. Technol Cancer Res Treat 13(1):57–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feygelman V, Nelms B, Opp D, Wolf T, Zhang G, Moros E (2012) VMAT QA: measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. Med Phys 6(7):4228–4238Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelms B, Chan M, Jarry G, Lemire M, Hampton C, Feygelman V (2013) Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action Levels. Med Phys. 40(11):111722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song J, Shin H, Kay C, Son S (2015) Dosimetric verification by using the ArcCHECK system and 3DVH software for various target sizes. PLoS One; 10(3):e0119937CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winiecki J, Morgas T, Majewska K, Drzewiecka B (2009) The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 14(05):162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivy Win Long Au
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Ciurlionis
    • 1
  • Neil Campbell
    • 1
  • Daniel Goodwin
    • 1
  1. 1.Auckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations