There is a greater sensitivity for detection of dosimetric errors occurring in a Rapidarc plan using gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm than 3%/3 mm. However, there is lack of consistently strong correlation between global gamma indexes and clinical DVH metrics for PTV and bladder and rectum for Rapidarc plans. It is recommended that the sole use of gamma index for Rapidarc QA plan evaluation could be insufficient and a methodology for evaluation of delivered dose to patient is required.
Unscheduled interruptions to radiotherapy treatments lead to decreased tumor control probability (TCP). Rapid cell repopulation in the tumor increases due to the absence of radiation dose, resulting in the loss of TCP. Compensation for this loss is required to prevent or reduce an extension of the patient's overall treatment time and regain the original TCP. The cyberattack on the Irish public health service in May 2021 prevented radiotherapy treatment delivery resulting in treatment interruptions of up to 12 days. Current standards for treatment gap calculations are performed using the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) methodology, using a point-dose for planning target volume (PTV) and the organs at risk (OAR). An in-house tool, named EQD 2 VH, was created in Python to perform treatment gap calculations using the dose-volume histogram (DVH) information in DICOM data extracted from commercial treatment planning system plans. The physical dose in each dose bin was converted into equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD 2 ), accounting for tumor cell repopulation. This EQD 2 -based DVH provides a 2D representation of the impact of treatment gap compensation strategies on both PTV and OAR dose distributions compared to the intended prescribed treatment plan. This additional information can aid clinicians' choice of compensation options. EQD 2 VH was evaluated using five high-priority patients experiencing a treatment interruption when the cyberattack occurred. Compensation plans were created using the RCR methodology to evaluate EQD 2 VH as a decision-making tool. The EQD 2 VH method demonstrated that the comparison of compensated treatment plans alongside the original intended treatment plans using isoeffective DVH analysis can be achieved. It enabled a visual and quantitative comparison between treatment plan options and provided an individual analysis of each structure in a patient's plan. It demonstrated potential to be a useful decision-making tool for finding a balance between optimizing dose to PTV while protecting OARs.
This study evaluated the effect of small systematic errors, such as those from a multileaf collimator (MLC), on the quality of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plan delivery. Two IMRT quality assurance (QA) verification techniques, field-by-field (FBF) and singe-gantry-angle composite (SGAC), were performed to evaluate both original and modified plans using a 2D ion chamber array detector. The dose distributions measured by the array detector for both FBF and SGAC were compared with the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). FBF was found to be more sensitive than SGAC at detecting small systematic errors such as the opening and closing of the MLC’s segments, which were evaluated with respect to a gamma-index of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm. The systematic errors involved in closing the segments of the anterior field by 2 mm and 3 mm showed a significant difference compared with the original field (unmodified): 83.1 ± 1.7% and 42.9 ± 1.9% gamma-index passing rates, respectively, for FBF. For SGAC, the magnitude of closing the MLC by 2 mm remained unnoticed and resulted in a 95.1 ± 2.61% gamma-index passing rate. Opening the MLC by 2 mm gave a false negative, but more than 5% of the rectum received 75 Gy, which exceeded the tolerance radiation dose recommended by the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.