Literature DB >> 18777926

The extraction of true profiles for TPS commissioning and its impact on IMRT patient-specific QA.

Guanghua Yan1, Christopher Fox, Chihray Liu, Jonathan G Li.   

Abstract

The aim of this work is to investigate the clinical impact of detector size effect on patient specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). Two photon beam models, BM6 and BM4, were commissioned using photon beam profiles measured with a 6 mm diameter and a 4 mm diameter ion chambers, respectively. A method was developed to extract the "true" cross beam profiles, free of volume averaging effect, using analytic fitting/deconvolution. The method was validated using beam profiles measured with a small (0.8 mm) diode detector for small (< or = 10 x 10 cm2) field sizes. These profiles were used to commission a third beam model (BM08). Planar dose distributions for eight IMRT plans (total of 53 fields) were calculated using the three beam models and measured with a two-dimensional detector array. Analysis using percent dose difference and distance-to-agreement criteria between the calculation and measurement was done to benchmark the performance of each beam model. The average passing rates between calculation and measurement were 93.8%, 98.9%, and 99.4% for BM6, BM4, and BM08, respectively, when 3%/3 mm criteria were used. A gradual increase in passing rates was noticed with the decrease in the size of the detector used to collect commissioning data. When 2%/2 mm criteria were used, the average passing rates increased significantly from 81.6% (BM6) to 92.6% (BM4) and 96.8% (BM08). These results quantify the enhancement of IMRT dose calculation accuracy with the reduction in detector size used for photon beam profiles measurement. Our study indicates that volume averaging effect can significantly affect the results of IMRT patient specific QA. By removing the detector size effect in beam commissioning, excellent passing rates can be achieved with more stringent criteria such as 2%/2 mm. The use of more stringent criteria for IMRT patient specific QA would likely result in higher chances of detecting any dosimetric errors arising from the treatment planning or delivery system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18777926     DOI: 10.1118/1.2952643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  9 in total

1.  Assessment of the setup dependence of detector response functions for mega-voltage linear accelerators.

Authors:  Christopher Fox; Tom Simon; Bill Simon; James F Dempsey; Darren Kahler; Jatinder R Palta; Chihray Liu; Guanghua Yan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Determination of boundaries between ranges of high and low gradient of beam profile.

Authors:  Jacek Wendykier; Marcin Bieniasiewicz; Aleksandra Grządziel; Tadeusz Jedynak; Wiktor Kośniewski; Marta Reudelsdorf; Piotr Wendykier
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2016-02-13

3.  Eight years of IMRT quality assurance with ionization chambers and film dosimetry: experience of the Montpellier Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Authors:  Pascal Fenoglietto; Benoit Laliberté; Norbert Aillères; Olivier Riou; Jean-Bernard Dubois; David Azria
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Efficient independent planar dose calculation for FFF IMRT QA with a bivariate Gaussian source model.

Authors:  Feifei Li; Ji-Yeon Park; Brendan Barraclough; Bo Lu; Jonathan Li; Chihray Liu; Guanghua Yan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Corrections of photon beam profiles of small fields measured with ionization chambers using a three-layer neural network.

Authors:  Ann-Britt Schönfeld; Karl Mund; Guanghua Yan; Andreas Alexander Schönfeld; Hui Khee Looe; Björn Poppe
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Testing the methodology for dosimetry audit of heterogeneity corrections and small MLC-shaped fields: Results of IAEA multi-center studies.

Authors:  Joanna Izewska; Paulina Wesolowska; Godfrey Azangwe; David S Followill; David I Thwaites; Mehenna Arib; Amalia Stefanic; Claudio Viegas; Luo Suming; Daniela Ekendahl; Wojciech Bulski; Dietmar Georg
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  On the sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors.

Authors:  Guanghua Yan; Chihray Liu; Thomas A Simon; Lee-Cheng Peng; Christopher Fox; Jonathan G Li
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-02-05       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning.

Authors:  Jacob A Gersh; Ryan C M Best; Ronald J Watts
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Evaluation of a neural network-based photon beam profile deconvolution method.

Authors:  Karl Mund; Jian Wu; Chihray Liu; Guanghua Yan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 2.102

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.