Abstract
Purpose
To study the control graphs applicability for the geometric uncertainties of VMAT treatments in prostate cancer patients, and their use to verify the hypothesis of the data obtained randomness, to apply the margins of Van Herk expression.
Material and methods
During the first 5 days of treatment, and then once a week, a Kv CBCT was performed, compared with the simulation CT and adjusted the displacements, to determine the inter-fraction errors. Immediately after radiation therapy, another CBCT was performed (for intra-fraction errors). With these data, the X, R position control charts have been made. The patients, not maintained the deviations within the charts control limits, were called “anomalies”. Then, we compared the deviations and margins calculated with the van Herk expression for all patients and for those without anomalies.
Results
The margins determined show appreciable differences if there were calculated for the total set of patients or for the set of them without anomalies in the control charts. For the overall set of patients, the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical margins were 0.45 cm, 0.52 cm, 0.56 cm, while for the set of patients without anomalies were 0.29 cm, 0.35 cm, and 0.38 cm.
Conclusions
The use of control charts allows tracking geometric deviations both inter and intra-fraction, variability real-time control and to detect situations in which it can change for non-random reasons, and require immediate investigation. Maintaining geometric deviations in the control state decreases the margins needed to administer a high dose to CTV in a high percentage of cancer prostate patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
van Herk M, Remeijer P, CoenRash Joos V L. The probability of correct dosage: Dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(4):1121–35.
van Herk M, Remeijer P, Lebesque JV. Inclusion of geometric uncertainties in treatment plan evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(4):1407–22.
Stroom JC, de Boer HCJ, Huizenga H, Visser AG. Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(4):905–19.
Langen KM, Meeks SL, Pouliot J. Quality assurance of onboard megavoltage computed tomography imaging and target localization systems for on- and off-line image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 supplement):S62–S6565.
W. Wunderink, “Accurate Targeting of liver tumors in stereotactic radiation therapy” (2011) Doctoral Thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
D.C. Montgomery, G.C. Runger (2011) “Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers”. Fifth Edition Ed John Wiley & Sons Inc, NJ, USA
D.C. Montgomery, “Introduction to statistical quality control”. Sixth Edition. 2009. Ed John Wiley & Sons Inc., NJ, USA
Li M, Li G-F, Hou X-Y, Gao H, Yong-Gan Xu, Zhao T. A dosimetric comparation between conventional fractionated and hypofractionated image-guided radiation therapies for localized prostate cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(12):1447–544. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.18349.
Mellon EA, Javedan K, Strom TJ, Moros EG, Biagioli MC, Fernandez DC, Wasserman SG, Wilder RB. A dosimetric comparison of volumetric arc therapy with step-and-shot intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(1):11–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2014.03.003[Epub 2014 Apr 18].
Myrehaug S, Chan G, Craig T, Weimberg V, Cheng C, Roach M 3rd, Cheung P, Sahgal A. A treatment planning and acute toxicity comparison of two pelvic nodal volume delineation techniques and delivery comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus volumetric arc therapy for hypofractionated high-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;82(4):e657–e662662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.006[Epub 2012 Jan 13].
Pawlicki T, Whitaker M, Boyer AL. Statistical process control for radiotherapy quality assurance. Med Phys. 2005;32(9):2777–866.
Unkelbach J, Alber M, Bangert M, Bokrantz R, Chan TCY, Deasy JO, et al. Robust radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(22):22TR02. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aae659.
Kaoru Ishikawa (1989) “Introduction to Quality Control”
Muñoz Montplet C, Jurado Bruggeman D. Characterization of geometrical random uncertainty distribution for a group of patients in radiotherapy. Rev Fis Med. 2010;11(2):115–8.
Funding
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This study has been approved by the ethics committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent
All patients signed an informed consent form to participate in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pardo, J., González, J., Aymar, N. et al. Statistical control of processes applied to geometric uncertainties for CTV expansion margins determination in prostate cancer patients treated with VMAT: a prospective study in 57 patients. Clin Transl Oncol 23, 1078–1084 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02493-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02493-6