Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Scientific Note
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  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 84:967–996

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Low D, Harms W, Mutic S, Purdy J (1998) A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25:656–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ceberg C (2013) A note on the interpretation of the gamma evaluation index. J Phys Conf Ser 444:012082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):5359–5373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2220–2226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Masi L, Loranzo L (2013) Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys 40(7):071718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):57–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):4228–4238

    Google Scholar 

  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):111722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):e0119937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

    Ivy Win Long Au, Laura Ciurlionis, Neil Campbell & Daniel Goodwin

Authors
  1. Ivy Win Long Au
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Ciurlionis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivy Win Long Au.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Au, I.W.L., Ciurlionis, L., Campbell, N. et al. Validation of the Mobius system for patient-specific quality assurance using introduced intentional errors. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 40, 181–189 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0503-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0503-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation