Literature DB >> 15995841

Dosimetric quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiotherapy feasibility study for a filmless approach.

Tilo Wiezorek1, Nico Banz, Michael Schwedas, Marcel Scheithauer, Henning Salz, Dietmar Georg, Thomas G Wendt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Test and comparison of various 2-D real-time detectors for dosimetric quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with the vision to replace radiographic films for 2-D dosimetry.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: All IMRT treatment plans were created with the Konrad software (Siemens OCS). The final dose calculation was also carried out in Konrad. A Mevatron Primus (Siemens OCS) linear accelerator which provides 6-MV and 15-MV highenergy photon beams was used for the delivery of segmented multileaf-modulated IMRT. Three different 2-D detectors, each based on a different physical (interaction) principle, were tested for the field-related IMRT verification: (1) the MapCheck diode system (Sun Nuclear), (2) the I'mRT QA scintillation detector (Scanditronix/Wellhöfer), and the Seven29 ionization chamber array (PTW). The performance of these detector arrays was evaluated against IMRT dose distributions created and calculated with Konrad and the results obtained were compared with film measurements performed with radiographic films (EDR2, Kodak). Additionally, measurements were performed with point detectors, such as diamond, diodes (PTW) and ionization chambers (PTW, Scanditronics/ Wellhöfer) and radiochromic films (GafChromic film MD55, ISP).
RESULTS: The results obtained with all three 2-D detector systems were in good agreement with calculations performed with the treatment-planning system and with the standard dosimetric tools, i.e., films or various point dose detectors. It could be shown that all three systems offer dosimetric characteristics required for performing field-related IMRT QA with relative dose measurements. The accuracy of the 2-D detectors was mostly +/- 3% normalized to dose maximum for a wide dynamic range. The maximum deviations did not exceed +/- 5% even in regions with a steep dose gradient. The main differences between the detector systems were the spatial resolution, the maximal field size, and the ability to perform absolute dosimetric measurements.
CONCLUSION: Commercial 2-D detectors have the potential to replace films as an "area detector" for field-related verification of IMRT. The on-line information provided by the respective systems can even improve the efficiency of the QA procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15995841     DOI: 10.1007/s00066-005-1381-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol        ISSN: 0179-7158            Impact factor:   3.621


  17 in total

1.  Effect of photon-beam energy on VMAT and IMRT treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy for advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Dietmar Georg; Holger Wirtz; Johannes Lutterbach
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Clinical implementation of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with ERGO++.

Authors:  Dirk Wolff; Florian Stieler; Brigitte Hermann; Katharina Heim; Sven Clausen; Jens Fleckenstein; Martin Polednik; Volker Steil; Frederik Wenz; Frank Lohr
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Practical guidelines for routine intensity-modulated radiotherapy verification: pre-treatment verification with portal dosimetry and treatment verification with in vivo dosimetry.

Authors:  A J Vinall; A J Williams; V E Currie; A Van Esch; D Huyskens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Quasi-IMAT study with conventional equipment to show high plan quality with a single gantry arc.

Authors:  Judith Alvarez Moret; Oliver Kölbl; Ludwig Bogner
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  [Department and patient management in radiotherapy. The Freiburg model].

Authors:  Felix Heinemann; Fred Röhner; Marianne Schmucker; Gregor Bruggmoser; Karl Henne; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Hermann Frommhold
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-03-28       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Comparison of individual and composite field analysis using array detector for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy dose verification.

Authors:  Sathiyan Saminathan; Varatharaj Chandraraj; C H Sridhar; Ravikumar Manickam
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2012-05-19

7.  Impact of gantry rotation time on plan quality and dosimetric verification--volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Holger Wirtz; Johannes Lutterbach
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.621

8.  Node-positive left-sided breast cancer: does VMAT improve treatment plan quality with respect to IMRT?

Authors:  M Pasler; D Georg; S Bartelt; J Lutterbach
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 3.621

9.  [First results of the federal quality assurance group ("Arztliche Stelle") in radiotherapy in baden-württemberg: part 1].

Authors:  Hans Hawighorst; Gerd Becker; Norbert Hodapp; Frederik Wenz
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Clinical experience with machine log file software for volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques.

Authors:  Luis Alberto Vazquez-Quino; Claudia Ivette Huerta-Hernandez; Dharanipathy Rangaraj
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2017-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.