【摘要】 目的 研究Monaco治疗计划系统中不同参数设置对容积旋转调强放射治疗(VMAT)计划质量的影响，得出更合理的治疗计划参数设置以提高VMAT治疗质量。 方法 2010年1-5月间治疗3例患者，为食管癌、宫颈癌和鼻咽癌各1例，分别设置不同的计划参数进行容积旋转调强计划优化，通过多种评估指标比较各VMAT计划质量的差异，得出临床所需的MSC、MSS、SSF、Sm、MMS和MDR共6个治疗计划参数对VMAT治疗质量的影响。 结果 MSC、MSS和SSF的3个参数对VMAT治疗质量不产生影响，有影响的Sm、MMS和MDR参数中，随着Sm和MMS值的增大，VMAT计划的剂量分布逐渐变差，但控制点数、机器跳数和照射时间均逐渐减小；随着MDR值增大，VMAT治疗的剂量分布先逐渐变差后不变，控制点数和机器跳数均是先增大后不变，而照射时间是先减小后不变。 结论 Sm、MMS和MDR 3个参数对VMAT计划质量有较大影响，对不同的患者，设置合适的Sm、MMS和MDR值对提高计划质量非常重要。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the impacts of parameter settings on the quality of plans for the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with Monaco treatment planning system. Methods Three patients who underwent VMAT from January to May 2010 were selected. The planning optimizations were processed by setting different planning parameters, including MSC, MSS, SSF, Sm, MMS and MDR, respectively. Then the quality of each plan with a certain set of parameters was evaluated by various evaluation indexes. The differences of quality among different plans were analyzed by comparing these indexes. Results There was no influence on the quality of VMAT planning for the parameter MSC, MSS and SSF to be set with different values. However, the other three parameters, MSC, MSS and SSF , affected the quality of VMAT planning with different values. Along with the aggrandizement of Sm and MMS value, the dose distribution of VMAT plans gradually became bad, while the number of control points, machine monitor units and irradiation time were gradually reduced. And along with the aggrandizement of MDR value, the dose distribution of VMAT plans became bad gradually until a constant state was reached, and both the number of control points and machine monitor units increased at first and then kept constant, while irradiation time decreased at first and then kept constant. Conclusion The selections of parameter Sm, MMS and MDR impact the quality of VMAT planning greatly. It is very important to set the suitable value of Sm, MMS and MDR to get the best planning quality for patients with different complexity.
Patient-specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) process is an important component of the implementation process of clinical radiotherapy. The tolerance limit and action limit of discrepancies between the calculated dose and the delivered radiation dose are the key parts of the VMAT QA processes as recognized by the AAPM TG-218 report, however, there is no unified standard for these two values among radiotherapy centers. In this study, based on the operational recommendations given in the AAPM TG-218 report, treatment site-specific tolerance limits and action limits of gamma pass rate in VMAT QA processes when using ArcCHECK for dose verification were established by statistical process control (SPC) methodology. The tolerance limit and action limit were calculated based on the first 25 in-control VMAT QA for each site. The individual control charts were drawn to continuously monitor the VMAT QA process with 287 VMAT plans and analyze the causes of VMAT QA out of control. The tolerance limits for brain, head and neck, abdomen and pelvic VMAT QA processes were 94.56%, 94.68%, 94.34%, and 92.97%, respectively, and the action limits were 93.82%, 92.54%, 93.23%, and 90.29%, respectively. Except for pelvic, the tolerance limits for the brain, head and neck, and abdomen were close to the universal tolerance limit of TG-218 (95%), and the action limits for all sites were higher than the universal action limit of TG-218 (90%). The out-of-control VMAT QAs were detected by the individual control chart, including one case of head and neck, two of the abdomen and two of the pelvic site. Four of them were affected by the setup error, and one was affected by the calibration of ArcCHECK. The results show that the SPC methodology can effectively monitor the IMRT/VMAT QA processes. Setting treatment site-specific tolerance limits is helpful to investigate the cause of out-of-control VMAT QA.
To investigate the γ pass rate limit of plan verification equipment for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan verification and its sensitivity on the opening and closing errors of multi-leaf collimator (MLC), 50 cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma VMAT plan with clockwise and counterclockwise full arcs were randomly selected. Eight kinds of MLC opening and closing errors were introduced in 10 cases of them, and 80 plans with errors were generated. Firstly, the plan verification was conducted in the form of field-by-field measurement and true composite measurement. The γ analysis with the criteria of 3% dose difference, distance to agreement of 2 mm, 10% dose threshold, and absolute dose global normalized conditions were performed for these fields. Then gradient analysis was used to investigate the sensitivity of field-by-field measurement and true composite measurement on MLC opening and closing errors, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to investigate the optimal threshold of γ pass rate for identifying errors. Tolerance limits and action limits for γ pass rates were calculated using statistical process control (SPC) method for another 40 cases. The error identification ability using the tolerance limit calculated by SPC method and the universal tolerance limit (95%) were compared with using the optimal threshold of ROC. The results show that for the true composite measurement, the clockwise arc and the counterclockwise arc, the descent gradients of the γ passing rate with per millimeter MLC opening error are 10.61%, 7.62% and 6.66%, respectively, and the descent gradients with per millimeter MLC closing error are 9.75%, 7.36% and 6.37%, respectively. The optimal thresholds obtained by the ROC method are 99.35%, 97.95% and 98.25%, respectively, and the tolerance limits obtained by the SPC method are 98.98%, 97.74% and 98.62%, respectively. The tolerance limit calculated by SPC method is close to the optimal threshold of ROC, both of which could identify all errors of ±2 mm, while the universal tolerance limit can only partially identify them, indicating that the universal tolerance limit is not sensitive on some large errors. Therefore, considering the factors such as ease of use and accuracy, it is suggested to use the true composite measurement in clinical practice, and to formulate tolerance limits and action limits suitable for the actual process of the institution based on the SPC method. In conclusion, it is expected that the results of this study can provide some references for institutions to optimize the radiotherapy plan verification process, set appropriate pass rate limit, and promote the standardization of plan verification.