Literature DB >> 17671348

Patient-specific IMRT verification using independent fluence-based dose calculation software: experimental benchmarking and initial clinical experience.

Dietmar Georg1, Markus Stock, Bernhard Kroupa, Jörgen Olofsson, Tufve Nyholm, Anders Ahnesjö, Mikael Karlsson.   

Abstract

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) verification. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and performance of independent dose calculation software (denoted as 'MUV' (monitor unit verification)) for patient-specific quality assurance (QA). 52 patients receiving step-and-shoot IMRT were considered. IMRT plans were recalculated by the treatment planning systems (TPS) in a dedicated QA phantom, in which an experimental 1D and 2D verification (0.3 cm(3) ionization chamber; films) was performed. Additionally, an independent dose calculation was performed. The fluence-based algorithm of MUV accounts for collimator transmission, rounded leaf ends, tongue-and-groove effect, backscatter to the monitor chamber and scatter from the flattening filter. The dose calculation utilizes a pencil beam model based on a beam quality index. DICOM RT files from patient plans, exported from the TPS, were directly used as patient-specific input data in MUV. For composite IMRT plans, average deviations in the high dose region between ionization chamber measurements and point dose calculations performed with the TPS and MUV were 1.6 +/- 1.2% and 0.5 +/- 1.1% (1 S.D.). The dose deviations between MUV and TPS slightly depended on the distance from the isocentre position. For individual intensity-modulated beams (total 367), an average deviation of 1.1 +/- 2.9% was determined between calculations performed with the TPS and with MUV, with maximum deviations up to 14%. However, absolute dose deviations were mostly less than 3 cGy. Based on the current results, we aim to apply a confidence limit of 3% (with respect to the prescribed dose) or 6 cGy for routine IMRT verification. For off-axis points at distances larger than 5 cm and for low dose regions, we consider 5% dose deviation or 10 cGy acceptable. The time needed for an independent calculation compares very favourably with the net time for an experimental approach. The physical effects modelled in the dose calculation software MUV allow accurate dose calculations in individual verification points. Independent calculations may be used to replace experimental dose verification once the IMRT programme is mature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17671348     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/16/018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  8 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

Review 2.  Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  X Ronald Zhu; Yupeng Li; Dennis Mackin; Heng Li; Falk Poenisch; Andrew K Lee; Anita Mahajan; Steven J Frank; Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 6.639

3.  Modulation factors calculated with an EPID-derived MLC fluence model to streamline IMRT/VMAT second checks.

Authors:  Stephen Steciw; Satyapal Rathee; Brad Warkentin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  A method to reconstruct and apply 3D primary fluence for treatment delivery verification.

Authors:  Shi Liu; Thomas R Mazur; Harold Li; Austen Curcuru; Olga L Green; Baozhou Sun; Sasa Mutic; Deshan Yang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Validation of a GPU-Based 3D dose calculator for modulated beams.

Authors:  Saeed Ahmed; Dylan Hunt; Jeff Kapatoes; Robert Hayward; Geoffrey Zhang; Eduardo G Moros; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA.

Authors:  Baozhou Sun; Dharanipathy Rangaraj; Sunita Boddu; Murty Goddu; Deshan Yang; Geethpriya Palaniswaamy; Sridhar Yaddanapudi; Omar Wooten; Sasa Mutic
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Effect of isocenter deviation on volume modulated arc therapy plan results and gamma passing rate in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yuan Yuan; Xiao-Bin Chang; Li-Juan Hu; Guo-Qing Wang; Yan-Jun Xue
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 1.241

8.  Cross verification of independent dose recalculation, log files based, and phantom measurement-based pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Ce Han; Jinling Yi; Kecheng Zhu; Yongqiang Zhou; Yao Ai; Xiaomin Zheng; Congying Xie; Xiance Jin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 2.243

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.