RESUMEN
Purpose To determine the appropriateness of implementing Mobius3D/FX (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) as not only a pretreatment secondary check but as an alternative to measurement-based patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). Methods Mobius3D/FX was commissioned and stock beam models were tweaked so that an independent recalculated 3D dose distribution can be obtained. Then, 50 patient-specific treatment plans for various indications were delivered across a 2D ion chamber array, radiochromic film setup, and electronic portal imager and analyzed with MobiusFX and gamma analysis. The concordance of plans scored as passing between MobiusFX and the conventional methods of QA was determined. Results All analyzed treatment plans passed with a gamma passing rate >90% across all conventional QA methods, most commonly using a 3%/3mm gamma criterion except for film measurements where a 5%/3mm criterion was applied. There was good agreement and concordance between MobiusFX and conventional methods when using a 3%/3mm criteria for MobiusFX, whereas a 2%/2mm criteria appeared too stringent as it failed treatment plans deemed clinically acceptable using conventional methods. Conclusions Using a 50-sample subset of clinically delivered treatment plans this non-inferiority-type comparison shows Mobius3D/FX based on log file analysis to be a suitable alternative to conventional QA methods when utilizing the 3%/3mm gamma criterion. Methods based on log file analysis can provide an opportunity for resource sparing, improving the efficiency, and workflow for evaluating IMRT treatment plans.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Several dose metrics in the categories-homogeneity, coverage, conformity and gradient have been proposed in literature for evaluating treatment plan quality. In this study, we applied these metrics to characterize and identify the plan quality metrics that would merit plan quality assessment in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) dose distributions. METHODS: Treatment plans of 90 lung SBRT patients, comprising 91 targets, treated in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Dose calculations were performed using anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) with heterogeneity correction. A literature review on published plan quality metrics in the categories-coverage, homogeneity, conformity and gradient was performed. For each patient, using dose-volume histogram data, plan quality metric values were quantified and analysed. RESULTS: For the study, the radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) defined plan quality metrics were: coverage (0.90 ± 0.08); homogeneity (1.27 ± 0.07); conformity (1.03 ± 0.07) and gradient (4.40 ± 0.80). Geometric conformity strongly correlated with conformity index (p < 0.0001). Gradient measures strongly correlated with target volume (p < 0.0001). The RTOG lung SBRT protocol advocated conformity guidelines for prescribed dose in all categories were met in ≥94% of cases. The proportion of total lung volume receiving doses of 20 Gy and 5 Gy (V20 and V5) were mean 4.8% (±3.2) and 16.4% (±9.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on our study analyses, we recommend the following metrics as appropriate surrogates for establishing SBRT lung plan quality guidelines-coverage % (ICRU 62), conformity (CN or CIPaddick) and gradient (R50%). Furthermore, we strongly recommend that RTOG lung SBRT protocols adopt either CN or CIPadddick in place of prescription isodose to target volume ratio for conformity index evaluation. Advances in knowledge: Our study metrics are valuable tools for establishing lung SBRT plan quality guidelines.