Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
The impact of plan complexity on calculation and measurement-based pre-treatment verifications for sliding-window
Shi Li1, Huanli Luo1, Xia Tan1
1Departments of Radiation Oncology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, Republic of China.
Background And Purpose:
In sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy, increased plan modulation often leads to increased plan complexities and dose uncertainties. Dose calculation and/or measurement checks are usually adopted for pre-treatment verification. This study aims to evaluate the relationship among plan complexities, calculated doses and measured doses.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 53 plan complexity metrics (PCMs) were selected, emphasizing small field characteristics and leaf speed/acceleration. Doses were retrieved from two beam-matched treatment devices. The intended dose was computed employing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and validated through Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithms. To measure the delivered dose, 3D diode arrays of various geometries, encompassing helical, cross, and oblique cross shapes, were utilized. Their interrelation was assessed via Spearman correlation analysis and principal component linear regression (PCR).
Results:
The correlation coefficients between calculation-based (CQA) and measurement-based verification quality assurance (MQA) were below 0.53. Most PCMs showed higher correlation r with CQA (max: 0.84) than MQA (max: 0.65). The proportion of r ≥ 0.5 was the largest in the pelvis compared to head-and-neck and chest-and-abdomen, and the highest r occurred at 1 %/1mm. Some modulation indices for the MLC speed and acceleration were significantly correlated with CQA and MQA. PCR's determination coefficients (R ) indicated PCMs had higher accuracy in predicting CQA (max: 0.75) than MQA (max: 0.42).
Conclusions:
CQA and MQA demonstrated a weak correlation. Compared to MQA, CQA exhibited a stronger correlation with PCMs. Certain PCMs related to MLC movement effectively indicated variations in both quality assurances.
