Forecasting machine performance check output using Holt-Winters approach

Aime M. Gloi; Vladimir Stankovich; Benjamin Rodriguez; Stanley Mayas

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20232769

Authors

Aime M. Gloi Department of Radiation Oncology. Genesiscare, Modesto, California, USA
Vladimir Stankovich Department of Radiation Oncology. Genesiscare, Modesto, California, USA
Benjamin Rodriguez Department of Radiation Oncology. Genesiscare, Modesto, California, USA
Stanley Mayas Department of Radiation Oncology. Genesiscare, Modesto, California, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20232769

Keywords:

Machine performance check, Holt-Winters additive method, Multiplicative method

Abstract

Background: Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an automated TrueBeam quality control (QC) tool used to verify beam output, isocenter, and uniformity. The aim of this study was to build an MPC output variation time series modeled on the Holt-Winters method over thirty days.

Methods: After AAPM TG-51 and baseline data were established for the Edge TrueBeam, daily MPC output data were gathered and analyzed through a Holt-Winters (additive and multiplicative) method. The model's performance was assessed via three standard error measures: the mean squared error (MSE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and the mean absolute deviation (MAE). The aim was achieved using a nonlinear multistart solver on the Excel platform.

Results: The results showed that MPC output variation forecasting is energy and model dependent. Both additive and multiplicative Holt-Winters methods were suitable for the analysis. The performance metrics MSE, MAPE, and MAD were found to be well within acceptable limits.

Conclusions: A Holt-Winters model was able to accurately forecast the MPC output variation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, et al. Comprehensive QA for Radiation Oncology Report of AAPM Radiation-Therapy Committee Task-Group-40. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):581-618.

Morton RJ. Quality Assurance for Medical Accelerators. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):361-9.

Bissonnette J, Balter P, Dong Lei. Quality assurance for image‐guided radiation therapy utilizing CT‐based technologies: a report of the AAPM TG‐179. Med Phys. 2012; 39(4):1946-63.

Baily NA, Horn RA, Kampp TD. Fluoroscopic visualization of megavoltage therapeutic x ray beams. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1980;6:935-9.

Fuangrod T, Rowshanfarzad P, Greer PB. A cine-EPID based method for jaw detection and quality assurance for tracking jaw in IMRT/VMAT treatments. Phys Med. 2015;31:16-24.

Ding A, Xing L, Han B. Development of an accurate EPID-based output measurement and dosimetric verification tool for electron beam therapy. Med Phys. 2015;42:4190-8.

Hossain M. Output trends, characteristics, and measurements of three megavoltage radiotherapy linear accelerators. J App Clin Med Physics. 2014;15: 32-8.

Luketina IA, Gregg L. Linear accelerator output variability. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2004;27(3): 155-9

Kapanen M, Tenhunen M, Hamalainen T, Sipila P, Parkkinen R, Jarvinen H. Analysis of quality control data of eight modern radiotherapy linear accelerators: the short- and long-term behaviors of the outputs and the reproducibility of quality control measurements. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(14):3581-92

Holt CC. Forecasting trends and seasonal by exponentially weighted moving averages. ONR Memo. 1957.

Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, et al. AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams Med Phys 1999;26(9):1847-70.

Lewis CD. Demand forecasting and inventory control. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1997.

Barnes MP, Greer PB. Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine performance check (MPC) beam constancy checks for flattened and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:139-50.

Barnes MP, Greer PB. Evaluation of the Truebeam machine performance check (MPC) geometric checks for daily IGRT geometric accuracy quality assurance. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:200-206.

Barnes MP, Greer PB. Evaluation of the Truebeam machine performance check (MPC): mechanical and collimation checks. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18: 56-66.

McDermott LC, Louwe RJW, Sonke JJ, van Herk MB. Dose-response and ghosting effects of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys. 2004;31(2):285-95.

Barnes MP, Pomare D, Menk FW, Moraro B, Greer PB. Evaluation of the Truebeam machine performance check (MPC): OBI X‐ray tube alignment procedure. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19:68-78.

Gao S, Balter PA, Rose M, Simon WE. Measurement of changes in linear accelerator photon energy through flatness variation using an ion chamber array. Med Phys. 2013;40(4):143-9.

Goodall S, Harding N, Simpson J, Alexander L, Morgan S. Clinical implementation of photon beam flatness measurements to verify beam quality. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(6):340-5.

Hossain M, Rhoades J. On beam quality and flatness of radiotherapy megavoltage photon beams. Australas Phys Eng S. 2016;39(1):135-45.