Premium
TU‐G‐BRD‐08: In‐Vivo EPID Dosimetry: Quantifying the Detectability of Four Classes of Errors
Author(s) -
Ford E,
Phillips M,
Bojechko C
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4925743
Subject(s) - isocenter , dosimetry , mathematics , nuclear medicine , histogram , image guided radiation therapy , observational error , statistics , algorithm , medical imaging , medicine , computer science , artificial intelligence , imaging phantom , image (mathematics)
Purpose: EPID dosimetry is an emerging method for treatment verification and QA. Given that the in‐vivo EPID technique is in clinical use at some centers, we investigate the sensitivity and specificity for detecting different classes of errors. We assess the impact of these errors using dose volume histogram endpoints. Though data exist for EPID dosimetry performed pre‐treatment, this is the first study quantifying its effectiveness when used during patient treatment (in‐vivo). Methods: We analyzed 17 patients; EPID images of the exit dose were acquired and used to reconstruct the planar dose at isocenter. This dose was compared to the TPS dose using a 3%/3mm gamma criteria. To simulate errors, modifications were made to treatment plans using four possible classes of error: 1) patient misalignment, 2) changes in patient body habitus, 3) machine output changes and 4) MLC misalignments. Each error was applied with varying magnitudes. To assess the detectability of the error, the area under a ROC curve (AUC) was analyzed. The AUC was compared to changes in D99 of the PTV introduced by the simulated error. Results: For systematic changes in the MLC leaves, changes in the machine output and patient habitus, the AUC varied from 0.78–0.97 scaling with the magnitude of the error. The optimal gamma threshold as determined by the ROC curve varied between 84–92%. There was little diagnostic power in detecting random MLC leaf errors and patient shifts (AUC 0.52–0.74). Some errors with weak detectability had large changes in D99. Conclusion: These data demonstrate the ability of EPID‐based in‐vivo dosimetry in detecting variations in patient habitus and errors related to machine parameters such as systematic MLC misalignments and machine output changes. There was no correlation found between the detectability of the error using the gamma pass rate, ROC analysis and the impact on the dose volume histogram. Funded by grant R18HS022244 from AHRQ