Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient‐specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2016-03, Vol.17 (2), p.341-367
• Main Authors: Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco, Pérez‐Vara, Consuelo, Clavo‐Herranz, María H., López‐Carrizosa, Concepción, Pérez‐Regadera, José, Ibáñez‐Villoslada, Carmen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D dose reconstruction; Algorithms; Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Male; Models, Statistical; Phantoms, Imaging; pretreatment verifications; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Radiation Oncology Physics; radiobiological metrics; Radiobiology; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; VMAT QA
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5783

VMAT is a powerful technique to deliver hypofractionated prostate treatments. The lack of correlations between usual 2D pretreatment QA results and the clinical impact of possible mistakes has allowed the development of 3D verification systems. Dose determination on patient anatomy has provided clinical predictive capability to patient‐specific QA process. Dose‐volume metrics, as evaluation criteria, should be replaced or complemented by radiobiological indices. These metrics can be incorporated into individualized QA extracting the information for response parameters (gEUD, TCP, NTCP) from DVHs. The aim of this study is to assess the role of two 3D verification systems dealing with radiobiological metrics applied to a prostate VMAT QA program. Radiobiological calculations were performed for AAPM TG‐166 test cases. Maximum differences were 9.3% for gEUD, −1.3% for TCP, and 5.3% for NTCP calculations. Gamma tests and DVH‐based comparisons were carried out for both systems in order to assess their performance in 3D dose determination for prostate treatments (high‐, intermediate‐, and low‐risk, as well as prostate bed patients). Mean gamma passing rates for all structures were better than 92.0% and 99.1% for both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Maximum discrepancies were (2.4%±0.8%) and (6.2%±1.3%) for targets and normal tissues, respectively. Values for gEUD, TCP, and NTCP were extracted from TPS and compared to the results obtained with the two systems. Three models were used for TCP calculations (Poisson, sigmoidal, and Niemierko) and two models for NTCP determinations (LKB and Niemierko). The maximum mean difference for gEUD calculations was (4.7%±1.3%); for TCP, the maximum discrepancy was (−2.4%±1.1%); and NTCP comparisons led to a maximum deviation of (1.5%±0.5%). The potential usefulness of biological metrics in patient‐specific QA has been explored. Both systems have been successfully assessed as potential tools for evaluating the clinical outcome of a radiotherapy treatment in the scope of pretreatment QA. PACS number(s): 87.56.Fc, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.dk, 87.55.dh, 87.10.Vg, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.‐x, 87.56.‐v