ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2287-8212
Current Organisations
University College Hospital
,
University College London
,
National Physical Laboratory
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2013
DOI: 10.1016/J.RADONC.2013.08.048
Abstract: To investigate the variability of the global gamma index (γ) analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems and to assess the impact of measurement with low resolution detector arrays on γ. Five commercial QA systems (PTW 2D-Array, Scandidos Delta4, SunNuclear ArcCHECK, Varian EPID, and Gafchromic EBT2 film) were investigated. The response of γ analysis to deliberately introduced errors in pelvis and head & neck IMRT and RapidArc™ plans was evaluated in each system. A theoretical γ was calculated in each commercial QA system software (PTW Verisoft, Delta4 software, SNC Patient, Varian Portal Dosimetry and IBA OmniPro, respectively), using treatment planning system resolution virtual measurements and compared to an independent calculation. Error-induced plans were measured on a linear accelerator and were evaluated against the error-free dose distribution calculated using Varian Eclipse™ in the relevant phantom CT scan. In all cases, global γ was used with a 20% threshold relative to a point selected in a high dose and low gradient region. The γ based on measurement was compared against the theoretical to evaluate the response of each system. There was statistically good agreement between the predicted γ based on the virtual measurements from each software (concordance correlation coefficient, ρc>0.92) relative to the independent prediction in all cases. For the actual measured data, the agreement with the predicted γ reduces with tightening passing criteria and the variability between the different systems increases. This indicates that the detector array configuration and resolution have greater impact on the experimental calculation of γ due to under-s ling of the dose distribution, blurring effects, noise, or a combination. It is important to understand the response and limitations of the gamma index analysis combined with the equipment in use. For the same pass-rate criteria, different devices and software combinations exhibit varying levels of agreement with the predicted γ analysis.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2002
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03749-5
Abstract: The precise shape of the three-dimensional dose distributions created by intensity-modulated radiotherapy means that the verification of patient position and setup is crucial to the outcome of the treatment. In this paper, we investigate and compare the use of two different image calibration procedures that allow extraction of patient anatomy from measured electronic portal images of intensity-modulated treatment beams. Electronic portal images of the intensity-modulated treatment beam delivered using the dynamic multileaf collimator technique were acquired. The images were formed by measuring a series of frames or segments throughout the delivery of the beams. The frames were then summed to produce an integrated portal image of the delivered beam. Two different methods for calibrating the integrated image were investigated with the aim of removing the intensity modulations of the beam. The first involved a simple point-by-point ision of the integrated image by a single calibration image of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to a homogeneous polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom. The second calibration method is known as the quadratic calibration method and required a series of calibration images of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to different thicknesses of homogeneous PMMA blocks. Measurements were made using two different detector systems: a Varian amorphous silicon flat-panel imager and a Theraview camera-based system. The methods were tested first using a contrast phantom before images were acquired of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment delivered to the prostate and pelvic nodes of cancer patients at the Royal Marsden Hospital. The results indicate that the calibration methods can be used to remove the intensity modulations of the beam, making it possible to see the outlines of bony anatomy that could be used for patient position verification. This was shown for both posterior and lateral delivered fields. Very little difference between the two calibration methods was observed, so the simpler ision method, requiring only the single extra calibration measurement and much simpler computation, was the favored method. This new method could provide a complementary tool to existing position verification methods, and it has the advantage that it is completely passive, requiring no further dose to the patient and using only the treatment fields.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.1016/J.RADONC.2017.10.012
Abstract: Quality assurance (QA) for clinical trials is important. Lack of compliance can affect trial outcome. Clinical trial QA groups have different methods of dose distribution verification and analysis, all with the ultimate aim of ensuring trial compliance. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of different processes to inform future dosimetry audit reciprocity. Six clinical trial QA groups participated. Intensity modulated treatment plans were generated for three different cases. A range of 17 virtual 'measurements' were generated by introducing a variety of simulated perturbations (such as MLC position deviations, dose differences, gantry rotation errors, Gaussian noise) to three different treatment plan cases. Participants were blinded to the 'measured' data details. Each group analysed the datasets using their own gamma index (γ) technique and using standardised parameters for passing criteria, lower dose threshold, γ normalisation and global γ. For the same virtual 'measured' datasets, different results were observed using local techniques. For the standardised γ, differences in the percentage of points passing with γ < 1 were also found, however these differences were less pronounced than for each clinical trial QA group's analysis. These variations may be due to different software implementations of γ. This virtual dosimetry audit has been an informative step in understanding differences in the verification of measured dose distributions between different clinical trial QA groups. This work lays the foundations for audit reciprocity between groups, particularly with more clinical trials being open to international recruitment.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.RADONC.2022.04.019
Abstract: The quality of radiotherapy delivery has been shown to significantly impact clinical outcomes including patient survival. To identify errors, institutions perform Patient Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) assessing each in idual radiotherapy plan prior to starting patient treatments. Externally administered Dosimetry Audits have found problems despite institutions passing their own PSQA. Hence a new audit concept which assesses the institution's ability to detect errors with their routine PSQA is needed. Purposefully introduced edits which simulated treatment delivery errors were embedded into radiation treatment plans of participating institutions. These were designed to produce clinically significant changes yet were mostly within treatment delivery specifications. Actual impact was centrally assessed for each plan. Institutions performed PSQA on each plan, without knowing which contained errors. Seventeen institutions using six radiation treatment planning systems and two delivery systems performed PSQA on twelve plans each. Seventeen erroneous plans (across seven institutions) passed PSQA despite causing >5% increase in spinal cord dose relative to the original plans. Six plans (from four institutions) passed despite a >10% increase. This novel audit concept evolves beyond testing an institution's ability to deliver a single test case, to increasing the number of errors caught by institutions themselves, thus increasing quality of radiation therapy and impacting every patient treated. Administered remotely this audit also provides advantages in cost, environmental impact, and logistics.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2023
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2014
DOI: 10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.08.348
Abstract: To review the various radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) procedures used by the Global Clinical Trials RTQA Harmonization Group (GHG) steering committee members and present the harmonized RTQA naming conventions by amalgamating procedures with similar objectives. A survey of the GHG steering committee members' RTQA procedures, their goals, and naming conventions was conducted. The RTQA procedures were classified as baseline, preaccrual, and prospective/retrospective data capture and analysis. After all the procedures were accumulated and described, extensive discussions took place to come to harmonized RTQA procedures and names. The RTQA procedures implemented within a trial by the GHG steering committee members vary in quantity, timing, name, and compliance criteria. The procedures of each member are based on perceived chances of noncompliance, so that the quality of radiation therapy planning and treatment does not negatively influence the trial measured outcomes. A comparison of these procedures demonstrated similarities among the goals of the various methods, but the naming given to each differed. After thorough discussions, the GHG steering committee members amalgamated the 27 RTQA procedures to 10 harmonized ones with corresponding names: facility questionnaire, beam output audit, benchmark case, dummy run, complex treatment dosimetry check, virtual phantom, in idual case review, review of patients' treatment records, and protocol compliance and dosimetry site visit. Harmonized RTQA harmonized naming conventions, which can be used in all future clinical trials involving radiation therapy, have been established. Harmonized procedures will facilitate future intergroup trial collaboration and help to ensure comparable RTQA between international trials, which enables meta-analyses and reduces RTQA workload for intergroup studies.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2004
DOI: 10.1016/J.RADONC.2004.09.003
Abstract: The purpose of the work presented in this paper was to determine whether patient positioning and delivery errors could be detected using electronic portal images of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We carried out a series of controlled experiments delivering an IMRT beam to a humanoid phantom using both the dynamic and multiple static field method of delivery. The beams were imaged, the images calibrated to remove the IMRT fluence variation and then compared with calibrated images of the reference beams without any delivery or position errors. The first set of experiments involved translating the position of the phantom both laterally and in a superior/inferior direction a distance of 1, 2, 5 and 10 mm. The phantom was also rotated 1 and 2 degrees . For the second set of measurements the phantom position was kept fixed and delivery errors were introduced to the beam. The delivery errors took the form of leaf position and segment intensity errors. The method was able to detect shifts in the phantom position of 1 mm, leaf position errors of 2 mm, and dosimetry errors of 10% on a single segment of a 15 segment IMRT step and shoot delivery (significantly less than 1% of the total dose). The results of this work have shown that the method of imaging the IMRT beam and calibrating the images to remove the intensity modulations could be a useful tool in verifying both the patient position and the delivery of the beam.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Catharine Clark.