Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of criteria applied to Tomotherapy DQA using statistical process control (SPC)

  • Original Paper - Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Related Areas of Science and Technology
  • Published:
Journal of the Korean Physical Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the suitability of the criteria applied to the analysis of Tomotherapy delivery quality assurance (DQA) at our institution using statistical process control (SPC). DQA data were retrospectively analyzed for 36 head and neck (H&N), 57 abdomen, and 115 pelvic cases, measured over a 1-year period. ArcCHECK and A1SL ionization chambers were used for DQA measurement for the evaluation of gamma index and point dose error, respectively. Depending on the treatment site, the analysis parameters include the gamma pass rate (%GP) of 95% with 3%/3 mm gamma index and 10% threshold, and point dose error of 3%. To analyze the characteristics of the process over time, a process behavior chart of the measured data for each treatment site was plotted. It has a center line (CL), and lower and upper control limit (LCL and UCL) lines. Process capability analysis was performed using the process capability index (\({C}_{\mathrm{p}}\)) and the process acceptability index (\({C}_{\mathrm{pk}}\)) from the specification. For the CL and LCL of the pelvic case, the %GPs observed were 99.01 and 95.48. The point dose errors were 0.79 (CL), − 2.34 (LCL), and 3.93 (UCL), respectively. The %GP results for the abdomen case were CL 97.97 and LCL 90.90. The point dose error showed a CL of 1.34, LCL of 1.28, and UCL of 3.96. For H&N, the %GPs observed were 98.41 (CL) and 93.73 (LCL). The CL, LCL and UCL of point error were 1.80, − 0.87, and 4.47, respectively. The \({C}_{\mathrm{p}}\) values of %GP for the pelvis, abdomen, and H&N were 1.417, 0.708, and 1.069, and the corresponding \({C}_{\mathrm{pk}}\) values were 0.281, 0.288, and 0.341, respectively. The appropriate pass rate was different for each treatment site, and the distribution pattern was also different for each parameter, affecting the DQA results. Therefore, it was concluded that different evaluation criteria should be applied according to the results of the DQA depending on the site and the applied parameters.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Skorska, T. Piotrowski, Optimization of treatment planning parameters used in tomotherapy for prostate cancer patients. Phys. Med. 29(3), 273–285 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. K. Yawichai, I. Chitapanarux, S. Wanwilairat, Helical tomotherapy optimized planning parameters for nasopharyngeal cancer. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 694 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Yu, T. Kairn, J. Trapp, S.B. Crowe, Technical note: a modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 20(7), 193–200 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. A.K. Templeton, J.C. Chu, J.V. Turian, The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 16(1), 32–39 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. E. Chung, D. Kwon, T. Park, H. Kang, Y. Chung, Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check for TomoTherapy delivery quality assurance. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 19(6), 193–199 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. T. Pawlicki, M. Whitaker, Variation and control of process behavior. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 71(1 Suppl), S210-214 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K. Gerard, J.P. Grandhaye, V. Marchesi, H. Kafrouni, F. Husson, P. Aletti, A comprehensive analysis of the IMRT dose delivery process using statistical process control (SPC). Phys. Med. 36(4), 1275–1285 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D.C. Westerly, E. Soisson, Q. Chen, K. Woch, L. Schubert, G. Olivera, T.R. Mackie, Treatment planning to improve delivery accuracy and patient throughput in helical tomotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 74(4), 1290–1297 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Thiyagarajan, D.S. Sharma, S. Kaushik, M. Sawant, K. Ganapathy, N.A. Nambi-Raj, S. Chilukuri, S.C. Sundar, K.C. Patro, A. Manikandan, Leaf open time sinogram (LOTS): a novel approach for patient specific quality assurance of total marrow irradiation. Radiat. Oncol. 15(1), 236 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J.M. Kapatoes, G.H. Olivera, P.J. Reckwerdt, E.E. Fitchard, E.A. Schloesser, T.R. Mackie, Delivery verification in sequential and helical tomotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 44(7), 1815–1841 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D.C. Montgomery, Statistical quality control, vol. 7 (Wiley, New York, 2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. D. Binny, C.M. Lancaster, S. Harris, S.R. Sylvander, Effects of changing modulation and pitch parameters on tomotherapy delivery quality assurance plans. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 16(5), 87–105 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Balog, G. Olivera, J. Kapatoes, Clinical helical tomotherapy commissioning dosimetry. Med. Phys. 30(12), 3097–3106 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. D. Binny, C.M. Lancaster, M. Byrne, T. Kairn, JVTSB Crowe, Tomotherapy treatment site specific planning using statistical process control. Phys. Med. 53, 32–39 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a research grant from Jeju National University Hospital in 2019.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju University College of Medicine, Jeju, Republic of Korea

    So Hyun Park & Jinhyun Choi

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Sohyun Ahn

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Kyung Su Kim, Kyubo Kim & Samju Cho

Authors
  1. So Hyun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinhyun Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyung Su Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kyubo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sohyun Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samju Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samju Cho.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S.H., Choi, J., Kim, K.S. et al. Analysis of criteria applied to Tomotherapy DQA using statistical process control (SPC). J. Korean Phys. Soc. 81, 1051–1058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40042-022-00565-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40042-022-00565-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation