Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA.

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient-specific, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field-by-field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in-house-designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in-house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters.

Implementation and evaluation of an end-to-end IGRT test.

The goal of this work was to develop and evaluate an end-to-end test for determining and verifying image-guided radiation therapy setup accuracy relative to the radiation isocenter. This was done by placing a cube phantom with a central tungsten sphere directly on the treatment table and offset from isocenter either by 5.0 mm in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical dimensions or by a random amount. A high-resolution cone-beam CT image was acquired and aligned with the tungsten sphere in the reference CT image. The table was shifted per this alignment, and megavoltage anterior-posterior and lateral images were acquired with the electronic portal imaging device. Agreement between the radiation isocenter (based on the MV field) and the center of the sphere (i.e., the alignment point based on kV imaging) was determined for each image via Winston-Lutz analysis. This procedure was repeated 10 times to determine short-term reproducibility, and then repeated daily for 51 days in a clinical setting. The short-term reproducibility test yielded a mean 3D vector displacement of 0.9 ± 0.15 mm between the imaging-based isocenter and the radiation isocenter, with a maximum displacement of 1.1 mm. The clinical reproducibility test yielded a mean displacement of1.1 ± 0.4 mm with a maximum of 2.0 mm when the cube was offset by 5.0 mm, and a mean displacement of 0.9 ± 0.3 mm with a maximum of 1.8 mm when the cube was offset by a random amount. These differences were observed in all directions and were independent of the magnitude of the couch shift. This test was quick and easy to implement clinically and highlighted setup inaccuracies in an image-guided radiation therapy environment.

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators.

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary). In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans.

PURPOSE: The authors investigated the performance of several patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) dosimeters in terms of their ability to correctly identify dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable IMRT patient plans, as determined by an in-house-designed multiple ion chamber phantom used as the gold standard. A further goal was to examine optimal threshold criteria that were consistent and based on the same criteria among the various dosimeters. METHODS: The authors used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine the sensitivity and specificity of (1) a 2D diode array undergoing anterior irradiation with field-by-field evaluation, (2) a 2D diode array undergoing anterior irradiation with composite evaluation, (3) a 2D diode array using planned irradiation angles with composite evaluation, (4) a helical diode array, (5) radiographic film, and (6) an ion chamber. This was done with a variety of evaluation criteria for a set of 15 dosimetrically unacceptable and 9 acceptable clinical IMRT patient plans, where acceptability was defined on the basis of multiple ion chamber measurements using independent ion chambers and a phantom. The area under the curve (AUC) on the ROC curves was used to compare dosimeter performance across all thresholds. Optimal threshold values were obtained from the ROC curves while incorporating considerations for cost and prevalence of unacceptable plans. RESULTS: Using common clinical acceptance thresholds, most devices performed very poorly in terms of identifying unacceptable plans. Grouping the detector performance based on AUC showed two significantly different groups. The ion chamber, radiographic film, helical diode array, and anterior-delivered composite 2D diode array were in the better-performing group, whereas the anterior-delivered field-by-field and planned gantry angle delivery using the 2D diode array performed less well. Additionally, based on the AUCs, there was no significant difference in the performance of any device between gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 5%/3 mm. Finally, optimal cutoffs (e.g., percent of pixels passing gamma) were determined for each device and while clinical practice commonly uses a threshold of 90% of pixels passing for most cases, these results showed variability in the optimal cutoff among devices. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT QA devices have differences in their ability to accurately detect dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable plans. Field-by-field analysis with a MapCheck device and use of the MapCheck with a MapPhan phantom while delivering at planned rotational gantry angles resulted in a significantly poorer ability to accurately sort acceptable and unacceptable plans compared with the other techniques examined. Patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in general should be thoroughly evaluated for their ability to correctly differentiate acceptable and unacceptable plans. Additionally, optimal agreement thresholds should be identified and used as common clinical thresholds typically worked very poorly to identify unacceptable plans.

Depression and anxiety screening after stroke: adherence to guidelines and future directions.

PURPOSE: This article examines practical approaches to increasing rates of screening for depression and anxiety in hospital-based stroke services. METHOD: The literature on depression and anxiety following stroke is briefly reviewed together with evidence relating to screening. A small-scale trial of an educational and support package to improve screening rates compared 30 consecutive admissions before and after the intervention. An extended commentary on the outcome considered alternative approaches to improving screening. RESULTS: The literature review confirmed that depression after stroke has multiple adverse effects and that screening is not universally applied. There has been less research into anxiety after stroke, but it is likely that anxiety screening is also incomplete. The trial of the intervention to promote screening demonstrated strong trends towards improvement for depression (23.3%; odds ratio 2.67; χ(2) p = 0.067) and a trend for anxiety (16.7%; odds ratio 1.96; χ(2) p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Education and training about depression and anxiety screening and access to screening materials improved rates of screening to a limited degree. An extended commentary explored how screening rates might be further improved by considering the intervention strategy, the staffing model, the training approach and the screening methods themselves. Finally, consideration is given to treatment approaches for mood disorders.