SU-G-BRB-03: Assessing the Sensitivity and False Positive Rate of the Integrated Quality Monitor (IQM) Large Area Ion Chamber to MLC Positioning Errors

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

To examine both the IQM's sensitivity and false positive rate to varying MLC errors. By balancing these two characteristics, an optimal tolerance value can be derived.

Methods:

An un-modified SBRT Liver IMRT plan containing 7 fields was randomly selected as a representative clinical case. The active MLC positions for all fields were perturbed randomly from a square distribution of varying width (±1mm to ±5mm). These unmodified and modified plans were measured multiple times each by the IQM (a large area ion chamber mounted to a TrueBeam linac head). Measurements were analyzed relative to the initial, unmodified measurement. IQM readings are analyzed as a function of control points. In order to examine sensitivity to errors along a field's delivery, each measured field was divided into 5 groups of control points, and the maximum error in each group was recorded. Since the plans have known errors, we compared how well the IQM is able to differentiate between unmodified and error plans. ROC curves and logistic regression were used to analyze this, independent of thresholds.

Results:

A likelihood-ratio Chi-square test showed that the IQM could significantly predict whether a plan had MLC errors, with the exception of the beginning and ending control points. Upon further examination, we determined there was ramp-up occurring at the beginning of delivery. Once the linac AFC was tuned, the subsequent measurements (relative to a new baseline) showed significant (p <0.005) abilities to predict MLC errors. Using the area under the curve, we show the IQM's ability to detect errors increases with increasing MLC error (Spearman's Rho=0.8056, p<0.0001). The optimal IQM count thresholds from the ROC curves are ±3%, ±2%, and ±7% for the beginning, middle 3, and end segments, respectively.

Conclusion:

The IQM has proven to be able to detect not only MLC errors, but also differences in beam tuning (ramp-up).

Partially supported by the Susan Scott Foundation

Ancillary