Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CHECK”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 757 records · Page 42
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-201-02: An Automated Treatment Plan Quality Assurance Program for Tandem and Ovoid High Dose-Rate Brachytherapy

Purpose: For tandem and ovoid (T&O) HDR brachytherapy in our clinic, it is required that the planning physicist manually capture ∼10 images during planning, perform a secondary dose calculation and generate a report, combine them into a single PDF document, and upload it to a record- and-verify system to prove to an independent plan checker that the case was planned correctly. Not only does this slow down the already time-consuming clinical workflow, the PDF document also limits the number of parameters that can be checked. To solve these problems, we have developed a web-based automatic quality assurance (QA) program. Methods: We set up a QA server accessible through a web- interface. A T&O plan and CT images are exported as DICOMRT files and uploaded to the server. The software checks 13 geometric features, e.g. if the dwell positions are reasonable, and 10 dosimetric features, e.g. secondary dose calculations via TG43 formalism and D2cc to critical structures. A PDF report is automatically generated with errors and potential issues highlighted. It also contains images showing important geometric and dosimetric aspects to prove the plan was created following standard guidelines. Results: The program has been clinically implemented in our clinic. In each of the 58 T&O plans we tested, a 14- page QA report was automatically generated. It took ∼45 sec to export the plan and CT images and ∼30 sec to perform the QA tests and generate the report. In contrast, our manual QA document preparation tooks on average ∼7 minutes under optimal conditions and up to 20 minutes when mistakes were made during the document assembly. Conclusion: We have tested the efficiency and effectiveness of an automated process for treatment plan QA of HDR T&O cases. This software was shown to improve the workflow compared to our conventional manual approach.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-BRA-02: SafetyNet: Automating Radiotherapy QA with An Event Driven Framework

Purpose: Quality assurance is an essential task in radiotherapy that often requires many manual tasks. We investigate the use of an event driven framework in conjunction with software agents to automate QA and eliminate wait times. Methods: An in house developed subscription-publication service, EventNet, was added to the Aria OIS to be a message broker for critical events occurring in the OIS and software agents. Software agents operate without user intervention and perform critical QA steps. The results of the QA are documented and the resulting event is generated and passed back to EventNet. Users can subscribe to those events and receive messages based on custom filters designed to send passing or failing results to physicists or dosimetrists. Agents were developed to expedite the following QA tasks: Plan Revision, Plan 2nd Check, SRS Winston-Lutz isocenter, Treatment History Audit, Treatment Machine Configuration. Results: Plan approval in the Aria OIS was used as the event trigger for plan revision QA and Plan 2nd check agents. The agents pulled the plan data, executed the prescribed QA, stored the results and updated EventNet for publication. The Winston Lutz agent reduced QA time from 20 minutes to 4 minutes and provided a more accurate quantitative estimate of radiation isocenter. The Treatment Machine Configuration agent automatically reports any changes to the Treatment machine or HDR unit configuration. The agents are reliable, act immediately, and execute each task identically every time. Conclusion: An event driven framework has inverted the data chase in our radiotherapy QA process. Rather than have dosimetrists and physicists push data to QA software and pull results back into the OIS, the software agents perform these steps immediately upon receiving the sentinel events from EventNet. Mr Keranen is an employee of Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Moran’s institution receives research support for her effort for a linear accelerator QA project from Varian Medical Systems. Other quality projects involving her effort are funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the NIH.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Technical Report: TG-142 compliant and comprehensive quality assurance tests for respiratory gating

Purpose: To develop and establish a comprehensive gating commissioning and quality assurance procedure in compliance with TG-142. Methods: Eight Varian TrueBeam Linacs were used for this study. Gating commissioning included an end-to-end test and baseline establishment. The end-to-end test was performed using a CIRS dynamic thoracic phantom with a moving cylinder inside the lung, which was used for carrying both optically simulated luminescence detectors (OSLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 films while the target is moving, for a point dose check and 2D profile check. In addition, baselines were established for beam-on temporal delay and calibration of the surrogate, for both megavoltage (MV) and kilovoltage (kV) beams. A motion simulation device (MotionSim) was used to provide periodic motion on a platform, in synchronizing with a surrogate motion. The overall accuracy and uncertainties were analyzed and compared. Results: The OSLD readings were within 5% compared to the planned dose (within measurement uncertainty) for both phase and amplitude gated deliveries. Film results showed less than 3% agreement to the predicted dose with a standard sinusoid motion. The gate-on temporal accuracy was averaged at 139 ± 10 ms for MV beams and 92 ± 11 ms for kV beams. The temporal delay of the surrogate motion depends on the motion speed and was averaged at 54.6 ± 3.1 ms for slow, 24.9 ± 2.9 ms for intermediate, and 23.0 ± 20.1 ms for fast speed. Conclusions: A comprehensive gating commissioning procedure was introduced for verifying the output accuracy and establishing the temporal accuracy baselines with respiratory gating. The baselines are needed for routine quality assurance tests, as suggested by TG-142.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-C-BRA-03: An Automated and Quick Contour Errordetection for Auto Segmentation in Online Adaptive Radiotherapy

Purpose: To develop a tool that can quickly and automatically assess contour quality generated from auto segmentation during online adaptive replanning. Methods: Due to the strict time requirement of online replanning and lack of ‘ground truth’ contours in daily images, our method starts with assessing image registration accuracy focusing on the surface of the organ in question. Several metrics tightly related to registration accuracy including Jacobian maps, contours shell deformation, and voxel-based root mean square (RMS) analysis were computed. To identify correct contours, additional metrics and an adaptive decision tree are introduced. To approve in principle, tests were performed with CT sets, planned and daily CTs acquired using a CT-on-rails during routine CT-guided RT delivery for 20 prostate cancer patients. The contours generated on daily CTs using an auto-segmentation tool (ADMIRE, Elekta, MIM) based on deformable image registration of the planning CT and daily CT were tested. Results: The deformed contours of 20 patients with total of 60 structures were manually checked as baselines. The incorrect rate of total contours is 49%. To evaluate the quality of local deformation, the Jacobian determinant (1.047±0.045) on contours has been analyzed. In an analysis of rectum contour shell deformed, the higher rate (0.41) of error contours detection was obtained compared to 0.32 with manual check. All automated detections took less than 5 seconds. Conclusion: The proposed method can effectively detect contour errors in micro and macro scope by evaluating multiple deformable registration metrics in a parallel computing process. Future work will focus on improving practicability and optimizing calculation algorithms and metric selection.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-52: A Novel Approach to X-Ray Tube Quality Assurance for CBCT Systems in Order to Better Assess the Patient Imaging Dose in a Large, Multi-Unit Treatment Facility

Purpose: To standardize the tube calibration for Elekta XVI cone beam CT (CBCT) systems in order to provide a meaningful estimate of the daily imaging dose and reduce the variation between units in a large centre with multiple treatment units. Methods: Initial measurements of the output from the CBCT systems were made using a Farmer chamber and standard CTDI phantom. The correlation between the measured CTDI and the tube current was confirmed using an Unfors Xi detector which was then used to perform a tube current calibration on each unit. Results: Initial measurements showed measured tube current variations of up to 25% between units for scans with the same image settings. In order to reasonably estimate the imaging dose, a systematic approach to x-ray generator calibration was adopted to ensure that the imaging dose was consistent across all units at the centre and was adopted as part of the routine quality assurance program. Subsequent measurements show that the variation in measured dose across nine units is on the order of 5%. Conclusion: Increasingly, patients receiving radiation therapy have extended life expectancies and therefore the cumulative dose from daily imaging should not be ignored. In theory, an estimate of imaging dose can be made from the imaging parameters. However, measurements have shown that there are large differences in the x-ray generator calibration as installed at the clinic. Current protocols recommend routine checks of dose to ensure constancy. The present study suggests that in addition to constancy checks on a single machine, a tube current calibration should be performed on every unit to ensure agreement across multiple machines. This is crucial at a large centre with multiple units in order to provide physicians with a meaningful estimate of the daily imaging dose.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-148: A Collapsed Cone Algorithm Can Be Used for Quality Assurance for Monaco Treatment Plans for the MR-Linac

Purpose: Treatment plans for the MR-linac, calculated in Monaco v5.19, include direct simulation of the effects of the 1.5T B{sub 0}-field. We tested the feasibility of using a collapsed-cone (CC) algorithm in Oncentra, which does not account for effects of the B{sub 0}-field, as a fast online, independent 3D check of dose calculations. Methods: Treatment plans for six patients were generated in Monaco with a 6 MV FFF beam and the B{sub 0}-field. All plans were recalculated with a CC model of the same beam. Plans for the same patients were also generated in Monaco without the B{sub 0}-field. The mean dose (Dmean) and doses to 10% (D10%) and 90% (D90%) of the volume were determined, as percentages of the prescribed dose, for target volumes and OARs in each calculated dose distribution. Student’s t-tests between paired parameters from Monaco plans and corresponding CC calculations were performed. Results: Figure 1 shows an example of the difference between dose distributions calculated in Monaco, with the B{sub 0}-field, and the CC algorithm. Figure 2 shows distributions of (absolute) difference between parameters for Monaco plans, with the B{sub 0}-field, and CC calculations. The Dmean and D90% values for the CTVs and PTVs were significantly different, but differences in dose distributions arose predominantly at the edges of the target volumes. Inclusion of the B{sub 0}-field had little effect on agreement of the Dmean values, as illustrated by Figure 3, nor on agreement of the D10% and D90% values. Conclusion: Dose distributions recalculated with a CC algorithm show good agreement with those calculated with Monaco, for plans both with and without the B{sub 0}-field, indicating that the CC algorithm could be used to check online treatment planning for the MRlinac. Agreement for a wider range of treatment sites, and the feasibility of using the γ-test as a simple pass/fail criterion, will be investigated.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-288: Impact of Trajectory Log Files for Clarkson-Based Independent Dose Verification of IMRT and VMAT

Purpose: To investigate the effect of the trajectory files from linear accelerator for Clarkson-based independent dose verification in IMRT and VMAT plans. Methods: A CT-based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) with a Clarksonbased algorithm was modified to calculate dose using the trajectory log files. Eclipse with the three techniques of step and shoot (SS), sliding window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) was used as treatment planning system (TPS). In this study, clinically approved IMRT and VMAT plans for prostate and head and neck (HN) at two institutions were retrospectively analyzed to assess the dose deviation between DICOM-RT plan (PL) and trajectory log file (TJ). An additional analysis was performed to evaluate MLC error detection capability of SMU when the trajectory log files was modified by adding systematic errors (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mm) and random errors (5, 10, 30 mm) to actual MLC position. Results: The dose deviations for prostate and HN in the two sites were 0.0% and 0.0% in SS, 0.1±0.0%, 0.1±0.1% in SW and 0.6±0.5%, 0.7±0.9% in RA, respectively. The MLC error detection capability shows the plans for HN IMRT were the most sensitive and 0.2 mm of systematic error affected 0.7% dose deviation on average. Effect of the MLC random error did not affect dose error. Conclusion: The use of trajectory log files including actual information of MLC location, gantry angle, etc should be more effective for an independent verification. The tolerance level for the secondary check using the trajectory file may be similar to that of the verification using DICOM-RT plan file. From the view of the resolution of MLC positional error detection, the secondary check could detect the MLC position error corresponding to the treatment sites and techniques. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans

Purpose: In this study, we developed a system to calculate three dimensional (3D) dose that reflects dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration for head and neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) without additional treatment planning system calculation on real time. Methods: An original system called clarkson dose calculation based dosimetric error calculation to calculate dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration was developed by MATLAB (Math Works, Natick, MA). Our program, first, calculates point doses at isocenter for baseline and modified VMAT plan, which generated by inducing MLC errors that enlarged aperture size of 1.0 mm with clarkson dose calculation. Second, error incuced 3D dose was generated with transforming TPS baseline 3D dose using calculated point doses. Results: Mean computing time was less than 5 seconds. For seven head and neck and prostate plans, between our method and TPS calculated error incuced 3D dose, the 3D gamma passing rates (0.5%/2 mm, global) are 97.6±0.6% and 98.0±0.4%. The dose percentage change with dose volume histogram parameter of mean dose on target volume were 0.1±0.5% and 0.4±0.3%, and with generalized equivalent uniform dose on target volume were −0.2±0.5% and 0.2±0.3%. Conclusion: The erroneous 3D dose calculated by our method is useful to check dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration before pre treatment patient QA dosimetry checks.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-470: Implementation of a Daily Quality Assurance Phantom for Six Degrees-Of-Freedom Couch Testing

Purpose: To develop a daily quality assurance (QA) device that can test the 6DoF (degrees of freedom) couch repositioning accuracy, prior to SBRT treatment deliveries, with an accuracy of ±0.3 degrees and ±0.3 mm. Methods: A daily QA phantom is designed with a focus on the derived center of projections of its markers, rather than tracking its individual markers one at a time. This approach can be the most favorable to address the intended machining accuracy of the QA phantom and the CBCT spatial resolution limitations, primarily 1 mm min slice thickness, simultaneously. With the current design, ±0.1 mm congruence of the resultant center of gravity of the markers with reference CT (0.6 mm minimum slice thickness) vs CBCT (1.0 mm minimum slice thickness) can be achieved. If successful, the QA device should be qualified to test 6DoF couch performance with a gauged accuracy of ±0.3 degrees/±0.3 mm. Testing is performed for the Varian True Beam 2.0 6DoF system. Results: Once the QA phantom is constructed and tested, agreement of the center of gravity of the reference CT scan and the CBCT scan of ±0.1 mm is achieved. This has translated into a consistent 3D-3D match on the treatment machine, CT vs CBCT, with a repetitive ±0.1 mm variation, thus exceeding our expectations. We have deployed the phantom for daily QA on one of our accelerators, and found that the QA time has increased by only 10 minutes. Conclusion: A 6DoF phantom has been designed (patent pending) and built with a realistic work flow in mind where the daily couch accuracy QA checks taking less than 10 minutes. Current developments include integration with the Varian’s Machine Performance Check consistency module.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-593: Technical Treatment Accuracy in a Clinic of Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to estimate technical treatment accuracy in fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) using extend system (ES) of Gamma Knife (GK). Methods: The fSRS with GK relies on a patient specific re-locatable immobilization system. The reference treatment position is estimated using a digital probe and a repositioning check tool (RCT). The “calibration values” of RCT apertures were compared with measured values on RCT-QA tool to evaluate the standard error (SE) associated with RCT measurements. A treatment plan with single “4 mm collimator shot” was created to deliver a radiation dose of 5 Gy at the predefined plane of a newly designed in-house head-neck phantom. The plan was investigated using radiochromic EBT3 films. The stereotactic CT imaging of a designed mini CT phantom and distortion study of MR imaging, were combined to calculate imaging SE. The focal precision check for GK machine tolerance was performed using a central diode test tool. Results: Twenty observations of RCT and digital probe, shown the SE of +/−0.0186mm and +/−0.0002mm respectively. A mean positional shift of 0.2752mm (σ=0.0696mm) was observed for twenty similar treatment settings of head-neck phantom. The difference between radiological and predefined exposure point was 0.4650mm and 0.4270mm; for two independent experiments. The imaging studies showed a combined SE of +/− 0.1055mm. Twenty frequent runs of a diode test tool showed the tolerance SE of +/−0.0096mm. If, the measurements are considered to be at 95% of confidence level, an expanded uncertainty was evaluated as +/− 0.2371mm with our system. The positional shift, when combined with an expanded uncertainty, a trivial variation of 0.07mm (max) was observed in comparing resultant radiological precision through film investigations. Conclusion: The study proposes an expression of “technical treatment accuracy” within “known uncertainties” is rational in the estimation of routine fSRS quality. The research work is supported by the research section of “All India Institute of Medical Sciences” - New Delhi, India under project no A-247.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-BRA-05: Application of a Feature-Based Tracking Algorithm to KV X-Ray Fluoroscopic Images Toward Marker-Less Real-Time Tumor Tracking

Purpose: To detect target position on kV X-ray fluoroscopic images using a feature-based tracking algorithm, Accelerated-KAZE (AKAZE), for markerless real-time tumor tracking (RTTT). Methods: Twelve lung cancer patients treated with RTTT on the Vero4DRT (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, and Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany) were enrolled in this study. Respiratory tumor movement was greater than 10 mm. Three to five fiducial markers were implanted around the lung tumor transbronchially for each patient. Before beam delivery, external infrared (IR) markers and the fiducial markers were monitored for 20 to 40 s with the IR camera every 16.7 ms and with an orthogonal kV x-ray imaging subsystem every 80 or 160 ms, respectively. Target positions derived from the fiducial markers were determined on the orthogonal kV x-ray images, which were used as the ground truth in this study. Meanwhile, tracking positions were identified by AKAZE. Among a lot of feature points, AKAZE found high-quality feature points through sequential cross-check and distance-check between two consecutive images. Then, these 2D positional data were converted to the 3D positional data by a transformation matrix with a predefined calibration parameter. Root mean square error (RMSE) was calculated to evaluate the difference between 3D tracking and target positions. A total of 393 frames was analyzed. The experiment was conducted on a personal computer with 16 GB RAM, Intel Core i7-2600, 3.4 GHz processor. Results: Reproducibility of the target position during the same respiratory phase was 0.6 +/− 0.6 mm (range, 0.1–3.3 mm). Mean +/− SD of the RMSEs was 0.3 +/− 0.2 mm (range, 0.0–1.0 mm). Median computation time per frame was 179 msec (range, 154–247 msec). Conclusion: AKAZE successfully and quickly detected the target position on kV X-ray fluoroscopic images. Initial results indicate that the differences between 3D tracking and target position would be clinically acceptable.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-202-07: Real-Time EPID-Based Detection Metric For VMAT Delivery Errors

Purpose: To create and test an accurate EPID-frame-based VMAT QA metric to detect gross dose errors in real-time and to provide information about the source of error. Methods: A Swiss cheese model was created for an EPID-based real-time QA process. The system compares a treatmentplan- based reference set of EPID images with images acquired over each 2° gantry angle interval. The metric utilizes a sequence of independent consecutively executed error detection Methods: a masking technique that verifies infield radiation delivery and ensures no out-of-field radiation; output normalization checks at two different stages; global image alignment to quantify rotation, scaling and translation; standard gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm) and pixel intensity deviation checks including and excluding high dose gradient regions. Tolerances for each test were determined. For algorithm testing, twelve different types of errors were selected to modify the original plan. Corresponding predictions for each test case were generated, which included measurement-based noise. Each test case was run multiple times (with different noise per run) to assess the ability to detect introduced errors. Results: Averaged over five test runs, 99.1% of all plan variations that resulted in patient dose errors were detected within 2° and 100% within 4° (∼1% of patient dose delivery). Including cases that led to slightly modified but clinically equivalent plans, 91.5% were detected by the system within 2°. Based on the type of method that detected the error, determination of error sources was achieved. Conclusion: An EPID-based during-treatment error detection system for VMAT deliveries was successfully designed and tested. The system utilizes a sequence of methods to identify and prevent gross treatment delivery errors. The system was inspected for robustness with realistic noise variations, demonstrating that it has the potential to detect a large majority of errors in real-time and indicate the error source. J. V. Siebers receives funding support from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

TU-FG-201-05: Varian MPC as a Statistical Process Control Tool

Purpose: Quality assurance in radiotherapy requires the measurement of various machine parameters to ensure they remain within permitted values over time. In Truebeam release 2.0 the Machine Performance Check (MPC) was released allowing beam output and machine axis movements to be assessed in a single test. We aim to evaluate the Varian Machine Performance Check (MPC) as a tool for Statistical Process Control (SPC). Methods: Varian’s MPC tool was used on three Truebeam and one EDGE linac for a period of approximately one year. MPC was commissioned against independent systems. After this period the data were reviewed to determine whether or not the MPC was useful as a process control tool. Analyses on individual tests were analysed using Shewhart control plots, using Matlab for analysis. Principal component analysis was used to determine if a multivariate model was of any benefit in analysing the data. Results: Control charts were found to be useful to detect beam output changes, worn T-nuts and jaw calibration issues. Upper and lower control limits were defined at the 95% level. Multivariate SPC was performed using Principal Component Analysis. We found little evidence of clustering beyond that which might be naively expected such as beam uniformity and beam output. Whilst this makes multivariate analysis of little use it suggests that each test is giving independent information. Conclusion: The variety of independent parameters tested in MPC makes it a sensitive tool for routine machine QA. We have determined that using control charts in our QA programme would rapidly detect changes in machine performance. The use of control charts allows large quantities of tests to be performed on all linacs without visual inspection of all results. The use of control limits alerts users when data are inconsistent with previous measurements before they become out of specification. A. Carver has received a speaker’s honorarium from Varian.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗