Clinical plan sensitivity to TPS parameters & complexity metrics that best capture this relationship
PD-0807
Abstract
Clinical plan sensitivity to TPS parameters & complexity metrics that best capture this relationship
Authors: FreEtta Brooks1, Mallory Glenn2, Julianne Pollard-Larkin1, Rebecca Howell3, Christine Peterson4, Christopher L. Nelson5, Catharine H. Clark6, Stephen F. Kry3
1MD Anderson Cancer Center , Radiation Physics, Houston, USA; 2University of Washington, Radiation Physics, Seattle, USA; 3MD Anderson Cancer Center, Radiation Physics, Houston, USA; 4MD Anderson Cancer Center, Biostatistics, Houston, USA; 5MD Anderson Cancer Center, Radiation Physics , Houston, USA; 6University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy , London, United Kingdom
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
The use of atypical beam model
parameters (based on current radiotherapy practice) is associated with poor
performance during dosimetry audits. This study evaluated the impact of this variety in parameter values on clinical treatment plans, and determined
which complexity metrics best describe the impact beam modeling errors have on
patient care.
Material and Methods
The multi-leaf collimator offset (MLC offset), transmission (MLC
transmission), leaf tip width (LTW), and seven additional beam modeling
parameters for a Varian accelerator were modified in RayStation to match the
community data at the 2.5, 25, 75 and 97.5 percentile levels (Glenn Med Phys
2020). The impact of these modifications was evaluated on twenty-five patient
cases, including prostate, lung, mesothelioma, head and neck, and brain plans,
generating a total of one thousand perturbations. The difference in the mean dose
delivered to the clinical target volume (CTV) and parallel organs at risk
(OAR), and the maximum dose to the serial OAR, were evaluated with respect to
the dose delivered using 50th-percentile parameter values.
Correlation between the CTV dose differences and 18 different complexity
metrics were evaluated using linear regression, where the best complexity
metric was selected based on average R-squared values.
Results
Variation
in the MLC offset, MLC transmission, and PDD parameters resulted in the greatest
dose difference across all anatomical sites. The greatest impact to the mean
CTV and OAR dose was: 5.7% and 16.7%, respectively, at the 97.5-percentile for
the MLC offset, -5.0% and -27.7%, respectively, at the 2.5-percentile for MLC
transmission, and 2.3% and 2.1%, respectively, at the 97.5-percentile for PDD.
Generally, the greatest dose impact occurred for the H&N plans, and the
least occurred for the lung or brain, although there was overlapping impact
across all anatomic sites. The mean MLC Gap, Tongue & Groove index, and
edge metric were found to be the three best complexity metrics at describing
the impact of TPS beam
modeling variations on clinical dose delivery across all sites. For these
metrics, all anatomical sites showed similar, although not identical, trends
between complexity and dose perturbation.
Conclusion
Extreme
values for MLC offset, MLC transmission, and PDD beam modeling parameters,
which have previously been associated with failing IROC’s IMRT phantom
dosimetry audit, have been found to also substantially impact the dose
distribution of clinical plans. Careful attention should be given to these beam
modeling parameters. The mean MLC Gap, T&G index, and edge metric
complexity metrics were the metrics best suited to identifying clinical plans
that are more sensitive to beam modeling errors.