Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.

PURPOSE To analyze the most recent results of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center's (IROC-H) anthropomorphic head and neck (H&N) phantom to determine the nature of failing irradiations and the feasibility of altering credentialing criteria. METHODS IROC-H's H&N phantom, used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy credentialing for National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials, requires that an institution's treatment plan agrees within ±7% of measured thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) doses; it also requires that ≥85% of pixels pass ±4 mm distance to agreement (7%/4 mm gamma analysis for film). The authors re-evaluated 156 phantom irradiations (November 1, 2014-October 31, 2015) according to the following tighter criteria: (1) 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm, (2) 5% TLD and 5%/3 mm, (3) 4% TLD and 4%/4 mm, and (4) 3% TLD and 3%/3 mm. Failure rates were evaluated with respect to individual film and TLD performance by location in the phantom. Overall poor phantom results were characterized qualitatively as systematic errors (correct shape and position but wrong magnitude of dose), setup errors/positional shifts, global but nonsystematic errors, and errors affecting only a local region. RESULTS The pass rate for these phantoms using current criteria was 90%. Substituting criteria 1-4 reduced the overall pass rate to 77%, 70%, 63%, and 37%, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that the probability of noise-induced TLD failure, even at the 5% criterion, was <0.5%. Phantom failures were generally identified by TLD (≥66% failed TLD, whereas ≥55% failed film), with most failures occurring in the primary planning target volume (≥77% of cases). Results failing current criteria or criteria 1 were primarily diagnosed as systematic >58% of the time (11/16 and 21/36 cases, respectively), with a greater extent due to underdosing. Setup/positioning errors were seen in 11%-13% of all failing cases (2/16 and 4/36 cases, respectively). Local errors (8/36 cases) could only be demonstrated at criteria 1. Only three cases of global errors were identified in these analyses. For current criteria and criteria 1, irradiations that failed from film only were overwhelmingly associated with phantom shifts/setup errors (≥80% of cases). CONCLUSIONS This study highlighted that the majority of phantom failures are the result of systematic dosimetric discrepancies between the treatment planning system and the delivered dose. Further work is necessary to diagnose and resolve such dosimetric inaccuracy. In addition, the authors found that 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm gamma criteria may be both practically and theoretically achievable as an alternative to current criteria.

[1]  David S Followill,et al.  Agreement Between Institutional Measurements and Treatment Planning System Calculations for Basic Dosimetric Parameters as Measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  David S Followill,et al.  Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Avraham Eisbruch,et al.  Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  R J Gastorf,et al.  Mailable TLD system for photon and electron therapy beams. , 1986, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Francesco C Stingo,et al.  Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans. , 2014, Medical physics.

[6]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. , 2013, Medical physics.

[7]  David S Followill,et al.  Technical note: Heterogeneity dose calculation accuracy in IMRT: study of five commercial treatment planning systems using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  Andrea Molineu,et al.  The Radiological Physics Center's standard dataset for small field size output factors , 2012, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[9]  Andrea Molineu,et al.  Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. , 2013, Medical physics.

[10]  T. Kairn,et al.  Evaluation of a Gafchromic EBT2 film dosimetry system for radiotherapy quality assurance , 2011, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[11]  Lei Dong,et al.  Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  W F Hanson,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters. , 1992, Medical physics.

[13]  Justus D. Adamson,et al.  On the sensitivity of TG‐119 and IROC credentialing to TPS commissioning errors , 2016, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[14]  David S Followill,et al.  Independent Evaluations of IMRT through the Use of an Anthropomorphic Phantom , 2006, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[15]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. , 2011, Medical physics.

[16]  J. Galvin,et al.  Radiochromic film dosimetry: recommendations of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 55. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. , 1998, Medical physics.