A systematic approach to statistical analysis in dosimetry and patient-specific IMRT plan verification measurements

Radiation Oncology

Ning J Yue²  Bruce G Haffty²  Leonard H Kim²  Ting Chen²  Sung Kim²  Miao Zhang²  Songbing Qin¹ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China;Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 195 Little Albany Street, 08903 New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

关键词: Statistical analysis;    Uncertainty;    IMRT QA;    Dose measurement;   

Others  :  1152868
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-8-225

 received in 2013-06-27, accepted in 2013-09-22,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

In the presence of random uncertainties, delivered radiation treatment doses in patient likely exhibit a statistical distribution. The expected dose and variance of this distribution are unknown and are most likely not equal to the planned value since the current treatment planning systems cannot exactly model and simulate treatment machine. Relevant clinical questions are 1) how to quantitatively estimate the expected delivered dose and extrapolate the expected dose to the treatment dose over a treatment course and 2) how to evaluate the treatment dose relative to the corresponding planned dose. This study is to present a systematic approach to address these questions and to apply this approach to patient-specific IMRT (PSIMRT) plan verifications.

Methods

The expected delivered dose in patient and variance are quantitatively estimated using Student T distribution and Chi Distribution, respectively, based on pre-treatment QA measurements. Relationships between the expected dose and the delivered dose over a treatment course and between the expected dose and the planned dose are quantified with mathematical formalisms. The requirement and evaluation of the pre-treatment QA measurement results are also quantitatively related to the desired treatment accuracy and to the to-be-delivered treatment course itself. The developed methodology was applied to PSIMRT plan verification procedures for both QA result evaluation and treatment quality estimation.

Results

Statistically, the pre-treatment QA measurement process was dictated not only by the corresponding plan but also by the delivered dose deviation, number of measurements, treatment fractionation, potential uncertainties during patient treatment, and desired treatment accuracy tolerance. For the PSIMRT QA procedures, in theory, more than one measurement had to be performed to evaluate whether the to-be-delivered treatment course would meet the desired dose coverage and treatment tolerance.

Conclusion

By acknowledging and considering the statistical nature of multi-fractional delivery of radiation treatment, we have established a quantitative methodology to evaluate the PSIMRT QA results. Both the statistical parameters associated with the QA measurement procedure and treatment course need to be taken into account to evaluate the QA outcome and to determine whether the plan is acceptable and whether additional measures should be taken to reduce treatment uncertainties. The result from a single QA measurement without the appropriate statistical analysis can be misleading. When the required number of measurements is comparable to the planned number of fractions and the variance is unacceptably high, action must be taken to either modify the plan or adjust the beam delivery system.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Qin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gerbi BJ, Higgins PD, Khan FM, Antolak JA, Herman MG, Deibel FC, Followill DS, Huq MS, Mihailidis DN, Yorke ED, Hogstrom KR: TASK GROUP REPORT: recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: supplement to the recommendations of task group 25. Med Phys 2009, 36:3239-3279.
• [2]Almond PR, Biggs BJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, Rogers DWO: AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med. Phys 1999, 26:1847-1870.
• [3]Khan FM, Doppke KP, Hogstrom KR, Kutcher GJ, Nath R, Prasad SC, Purdy JA, Rozenfeld M, Werner BL: Clinical electron‒beam dosimetry: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group No. 25. Med. Phys. 1991, 18:73-109.
• [4]Schulz RJ, Almond PR, Cunningham JR, Holt JG, Loevinger R, Suntharalingam N, Wright KA, Nath R, Lempert GD: A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high‒energy photon and electron beams. Med. Phys. 1983, 10:741-771.
• [5]International Atomic Energy Agency: Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water, Technical Reports Series No. 398. Vienna: IAEA; 2000.
• [6]Kutcher G, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, Palta JR, Purdy JA, Reinstein LE, Svensson GK, Weller M, Wingfield L: Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 40. Med. Phys. 1994, 21:581-618.
• [7]Das IJ, Zhu TC, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, Ahnesjo A, Gibbons J, Li XA, Lowenstein J, Mitra RK, Simon WE: Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM. Med. Phys. 2008, 35:4186-4215.
• [8]Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta JR, Ramsey CR, Salter BJ, Shi J, Xia P, Yue NJ, Xiao Y: IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM task group 119. Med. Phys. 2009, 36:5359-5373.
• [9]Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin FF, Simon W, Dresser S, Serago C, Aguirre F, Ma L, Liu C, Sandin C, Holms T: Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med. Phys. 2009, 36:4197-4212.
• [10]James H, Beavis A, Budgell G, Clark C, Convery D, Mott J, Dearnaley D, Perry R, Scrase C: Guidance for the Clinical Implementation of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, IPEM Report 96 2008. York, UK: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine; 2008.
• [11]Svensson GK, Baily NA, Loevinger R, Morton RJ, Moyer RF, Purdy JA, Shalek RJ, Wootton P, Wright KA: Physical Aspects of Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy, AAPM REPORT No. 13, International Standard Book Number: O-883 18-457-5. New York, NY: The American Institute of Physics, Inc.; 1984.
• [12]International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of x- or gamma-rays in radiotherapy procedures, ICRU Report 24. Oxford, UK: Journal of the ICRU, Oxford University Press; 1976.
• [13]Li JS, Lin T, Chen L, Price RA Jr, Ma CM: Uncertainties in IMRT dosimetry. Med Phys 2010, 37(6):2491-500.
• [14]Sánchez-Doblado F, Hartmann GH, Pena J, Capote R, Paiusco M, Rhein B, Leal A, Lagares JI: Uncertainty estimation in intensity-modulated radiotherapy absolute dosimetry verification. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68(1):301-10.
• [15]Jin H, Palta J, Suh TS, Kim S: A generalized a priori dose uncertainty model of IMRT delivery. Med Phys 2008, 35(3):982-96.
• [16]Jin H, Palta JR, Kim YH, Kim S: Application of a novel dose-uncertainty model for dose-uncertainty analysis in prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 78(3):920-8.
• [17]Palta JR, Kim S, Li JG, Liu C: Tolerance limits and action levels for planning and delivery of IMRT. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: The State of The Art, AAPM 2003, Medical Physics Monograph No. 29:593–612. Madison, WI, USA: Medical Physics Publishing; 2003.
• [18]Palta JR, Jin H, Kim S: Developing a rationale for tolerance values and action levels for the performance of external beam planning and delivery systems. Uncertainties in External Beam Radiation Therapy, AAPM 2011, Medical Physics Monograph No. 35. Madison, WI, USA: Medical Physics Publishing;
• [19]van Herk M, Witte M, van der Geer J, Schneider C, Lebesque JV: Biologic and physical fractionation effects of random geometric errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 57(5):1460-71.
• [20]Leong J: Implementation of random positioning error in computerized radiation treatment planning systems as a result of fractionation. Phys Med Biol 1987, 32:327-334.
• [21]Lujan AE, Ten Haken RK, Larsen EW, Balter JM: Quantization of setup uncertainties in 3-D dose calculations. Med Phys 1999, 26:2397-2402.
• [22]Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med. Phys. 1998, 25(5):656-661.
• [23]van Herk M: Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004, 14(1):52-64.