首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Radiation Research >Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA
【2h】

Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA

机译:针对患者的IMRT和VMAT QA的统计过程控制分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This work applied statistical process control to establish the control limits of the % gamma pass of patient-specific intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA), and to evaluate the efficiency of the QA process by using the process capability index (Cpml). A total of 278 IMRT QA plans in nasopharyngeal carcinoma were measured with MapCHECK, while 159 VMAT QA plans were undertaken with ArcCHECK. Six megavolts with nine fields were used for the IMRT plan and 2.5 arcs were used to generate the VMAT plans. The gamma (3%/3 mm) criteria were used to evaluate the QA plans. The % gamma passes were plotted on a control chart. The first 50 data points were employed to calculate the control limits. The Cpml was calculated to evaluate the capability of the IMRT/VMAT QA process. The results showed higher systematic errors in IMRT QA than VMAT QA due to the more complicated setup used in IMRT QA. The variation of random errors was also larger in IMRT QA than VMAT QA because the VMAT plan has more continuity of dose distribution. The average % gamma pass was 93.7% ± 3.7% for IMRT and 96.7% ± 2.2% for VMAT. The Cpml value of IMRT QA was 1.60 and VMAT QA was 1.99, which implied that the VMAT QA process was more accurate than the IMRT QA process. Our lower control limit for % gamma pass of IMRT is 85.0%, while the limit for VMAT is 90%. Both the IMRT and VMAT QA processes are good quality because Cpml values are higher than 1.0.
机译:这项工作应用了统计过程控制来建立患者特定强度调制放射疗法(IMRT)和体积调制弧光疗法(VMAT)质量保证(QA)的伽马合格率的控制极限,并通过以下方法评估QA过程的效率:使用过程能力指数(Cpml)。用MapCHECK测量了总共278项针对鼻咽癌的IMRT QA计划,而使用ArcCHECK进行了159项VMAT QA计划。 IMRT计划使用具有9个场的6兆伏电压,并且2.5个电弧用于生成VMAT计划。伽玛(3%/ 3 mm)标准用于评估质量检查计划。伽马通过率百分比绘制在控制图上。使用前50个数据点来计算控制极限。计算Cpml以评估IMRT / VMAT QA过程的能力。结果表明,由于IMRT QA中使用的设置更为复杂,因此IMRT QA中的系统错误要比VMAT QA高。 IMRT QA中的随机误差变化也比VMAT QA大,因为VMAT计划具有更大的剂量分布连续性。 IMRT的平均伽马通过百分比为93.7%±3.7%,VMAT为96.7%±2.2%。 IMRT QA的Cpml值为1.60,VMAT QA的值为1.99,这意味着VMAT QA流程比IMRT QA流程更准确。我们对IMRT的伽玛通过百分比的控制下限是85.0%,而VMAT的控制下限是90%。由于Cpml值高于1.0,因此IMRT和VMAT QA过程都具有良好的质量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号