SU‐F‐T‐272: Patient Specific Quality Assurance of Prostate VMAT Plans with Portal Dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of using the Portal Dosimetry (PD) method for patient specific quality assurance of prostate VMAT plans. Methods: As per institutional protocol all VMAT plans were measured using the Varian Portal Dosimetry (PD) method. A gamma evaluation criterion of 3%‐3mm with a minimum area gamma pass rate (gamma <1) of 95% is used clinically for all plans. We retrospectively evaluated the portal dosimetry results for 170 prostate patients treated with VMAT technique. Three sets of criterions were adopted for re‐evaluating the measurements; 3%‐3mm, 2%‐2mm and 1%‐1mm. For all criterions two areas, Field+1cm and MLC‐CIAO were analysed.To ascertain the effectiveness of the portal dosimetry technique in determining the delivery accuracy of prostate VMAT plans, 10 patients previously measured with portal dosimetry, were randomly selected and their measurements repeated using the ArcCHECK method. The same criterion used in the analysis of PD was used for the ArcCHECK measurements. Results: All patient plans reviewed met the institutional criteria for Area Gamma pass rate. Overall, the gamma pass rate (gamma <1) decreases for 3%‐3mm, 2%‐2mm and 1%‐1mm criterion. For each criterion the pass rate was significantly reduced when the MLC‐CIAO was used instead of FIELD+1cm. There was noticeable change in sensitivity for MLC‐CIAO with 2%‐2mm criteria and much more significant reduction at 1%‐1mm. Comparable results were obtained for the ArcCHECK measurements. Although differences were observed between the clockwise verses the counter clockwise plans in both the PD and ArcCHECK measurements, this was not deemed to be statistically significant. Conclusion: This work demonstrates that Portal Dosimetry technique can be effectively used for quality assurance of VMAT plans. Results obtained show similar sensitivity compared to ArcCheck. To reveal certain delivery inaccuracies, the use of a combination of criterions may provide an effective way in improving the overall sensitivity of PD. Funding provided in part by the Prostate Ride for Dad, Kitchener‐Waterloo, Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".