An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control
The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2014-09, Vol.15 (5), p.190-195 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 195 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 190 |
container_title | Journal of applied clinical medical physics |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Gagneur, Justin D. Ezzell, Gary A. |
description | The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were ‐1.8%,0%, and +1.2% from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.
PACS number: 87.55.Qr |
doi_str_mv | 10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5711098</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1561968805</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5410-aac732f8709eec96cc51139613b730e3089e69fee7ed18a2388a32055576ec5e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1vVCEUhonR2FrduzIkbtzMyIHLBTYmk4kfTdoYTV0ThjnTMuHCCPeO6b-X6dSmunEFhOe84eUh5DWwOQBn77fOD7v5HmSQ885w9YScguT9zBjonj7an5AXtW4ZA9BCPycnXHKmpDKnxC4SDcOu5D0OmEYaEj2__H5Fvy1owTrFsVKX1nSFbqCDG_1NSNcHKIbkfKVTPZzr6MZQx-BdpC3KY63U5zSWHF-SZxsXK766X8_Ij08fr5ZfZhdfP58vFxczLztgM-e8EnyjFTOI3vTeSwBhehArJRgKpg32ZoOocA3acaG1E5xJKVWPXqI4Ix-OubtpNeDaty7FRbsrYXDl1mYX7N83KdzY67y3UgEwo1vAu_uAkn9OWEc7hOoxRpcwT9WC7MH0WjPZ0Lf_oNs8ldTqWc4Na__a6a5R7Ej5kmstuHl4DDB7sGfv7Nk7e_Zgr428eVziYeCPrgb0R-BXiHj730C7WF5yBoaJ3ynGqQc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290579484</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles(OpenAccess)</source><creator>Gagneur, Justin D. ; Ezzell, Gary A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gagneur, Justin D. ; Ezzell, Gary A.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were ‐1.8%,0%, and +1.2% from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.
PACS number: 87.55.Qr</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25207579</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>beam matching ; Calibration ; Clinical medicine ; Datasets ; Dosimetry ; Equipment Failure Analysis - standards ; IMRT QA ; Particle Accelerators - instrumentation ; Particle Accelerators - standards ; Patient safety ; Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards ; Quality control ; Radiation Oncology Physics ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards ; Radiotherapy, Conformal - instrumentation ; Radiotherapy, Conformal - standards ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Software ; Standard deviation ; statistical process control ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014-09, Vol.15 (5), p.190-195</ispartof><rights>2014 The Authors.</rights><rights>2014. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5410-aac732f8709eec96cc51139613b730e3089e69fee7ed18a2388a32055576ec5e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5410-aac732f8709eec96cc51139613b730e3089e69fee7ed18a2388a32055576ec5e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711098/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711098/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207579$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gagneur, Justin D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ezzell, Gary A.</creatorcontrib><title>An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were ‐1.8%,0%, and +1.2% from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.
PACS number: 87.55.Qr</description><subject>beam matching</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis - standards</subject><subject>IMRT QA</subject><subject>Particle Accelerators - instrumentation</subject><subject>Particle Accelerators - standards</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology Physics</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Conformal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Conformal - standards</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>statistical process control</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1vVCEUhonR2FrduzIkbtzMyIHLBTYmk4kfTdoYTV0ThjnTMuHCCPeO6b-X6dSmunEFhOe84eUh5DWwOQBn77fOD7v5HmSQ885w9YScguT9zBjonj7an5AXtW4ZA9BCPycnXHKmpDKnxC4SDcOu5D0OmEYaEj2__H5Fvy1owTrFsVKX1nSFbqCDG_1NSNcHKIbkfKVTPZzr6MZQx-BdpC3KY63U5zSWHF-SZxsXK766X8_Ij08fr5ZfZhdfP58vFxczLztgM-e8EnyjFTOI3vTeSwBhehArJRgKpg32ZoOocA3acaG1E5xJKVWPXqI4Ix-OubtpNeDaty7FRbsrYXDl1mYX7N83KdzY67y3UgEwo1vAu_uAkn9OWEc7hOoxRpcwT9WC7MH0WjPZ0Lf_oNs8ldTqWc4Na__a6a5R7Ej5kmstuHl4DDB7sGfv7Nk7e_Zgr428eVziYeCPrgb0R-BXiHj730C7WF5yBoaJ3ynGqQc</recordid><startdate>20140908</startdate><enddate>20140908</enddate><creator>Gagneur, Justin D.</creator><creator>Ezzell, Gary A.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140908</creationdate><title>An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control</title><author>Gagneur, Justin D. ; Ezzell, Gary A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5410-aac732f8709eec96cc51139613b730e3089e69fee7ed18a2388a32055576ec5e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>beam matching</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis - standards</topic><topic>IMRT QA</topic><topic>Particle Accelerators - instrumentation</topic><topic>Particle Accelerators - standards</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology Physics</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Conformal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Conformal - standards</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>statistical process control</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gagneur, Justin D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ezzell, Gary A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles(OpenAccess)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gagneur, Justin D.</au><au>Ezzell, Gary A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2014-09-08</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>190</spage><epage>195</epage><pages>190-195</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were ‐1.8%,0%, and +1.2% from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.
PACS number: 87.55.Qr</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>25207579</pmid><doi>10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
ispartof | Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014-09, Vol.15 (5), p.190-195 |
issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5711098 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library; Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles(OpenAccess) |
subjects | beam matching Calibration Clinical medicine Datasets Dosimetry Equipment Failure Analysis - standards IMRT QA Particle Accelerators - instrumentation Particle Accelerators - standards Patient safety Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards Quality control Radiation Oncology Physics Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards Radiotherapy, Conformal - instrumentation Radiotherapy, Conformal - standards Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Software Standard deviation statistical process control United States |
title | An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T17%3A47%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20improvement%20in%20IMRT%20QA%20results%20and%20beam%20matching%20in%20linacs%20using%20statistical%20process%20control&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Gagneur,%20Justin%20D.&rft.date=2014-09-08&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=190&rft.epage=195&rft.pages=190-195&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1561968805%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2290579484&rft_id=info:pmid/25207579&rfr_iscdi=true |