Literature DB >> 21963288

Clinical introduction of a linac head-mounted 2D detector array based quality assurance system in head and neck IMRT.

Erik W Korevaar1, David J L Wauben, Peter C van der Hulst, Johannes A Langendijk, Aart A Van't Veld.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: IMRT QA is commonly performed in a phantom geometry but the clinical interpretation of the results in a 2D phantom plane is difficult. The main objective of our work is to move from film measurement based QA to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient CT scan. In principle, this could be achieved using a dose reconstruction method from 2D detector array measurements as available in the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry). The first step in the clinical introduction of this system instead of the currently used film QA procedures is to test the reliability of the dose reconstruction. In this paper we investigated the validation of the method in a homogeneous phantom with the film QA procedure as a reference. We tested whether COMPASS QA results correctly identified treatment plans that did or did not fulfil QA requirements in head and neck (H&N) IMRT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total number of 24 treatments were selected from an existing database with more than 100 film based H&amp;N IMRT QA results. The QA results were classified as either good, just acceptable or clinically rejected (mean gamma index <0.4, 0.4-0.5 or >0.5, respectively with 3%/3mm criteria). Film QA was repeated and compared to COMPASS QA with a MatriXX detector measurement performed on the same day.
RESULTS: Good agreement was found between COMPASS reconstructed dose and film measured dose in a phantom (mean gamma 0.83±0.09, 1SD with 1%/1mm criteria, 0.33±0.04 with 3%/3mm criteria). COMPASS QA results correlated well with film QA, identifying the same patients with less good QA results. Repeated measurements with film and COMPASS showed changes in delivery after a modified MLC calibration, also visible in a standard MLC check in COMPASS. The time required for QA reduced by half by using COMPASS instead of film.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement of COMPASS QA results with film based QA supports its clinical introduction for a phantom geometry. A standard MLC calibration check is sensitive to <1mm changes that could be significant in H&amp;N IMRT. These findings offer opportunities to further investigate the method based on a 2D detector array to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient anatomy.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21963288     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  17 in total

1.  Validation of a quick three-dimensional dose verification system for pre-treatment IMRT QA.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Fujio Araki; Takeshi Ono; Yuki Tomiyama; Masato Maruyama; Nozomu Nagasue; Yoshinobu Shimohigashi; Yudai Kai
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-09-27

2.  Monte Carlo Modeling of the Agility MLC for IMRT and VMAT Calculations.

Authors:  Shingo Ohira; Hideki Takegawa; Masayoshi Miyazaki; Masahiko Koizumi; Teruki Teshima
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Commissioning and validation of fluence-based 3D VMAT dose reconstruction system using new transmission detector.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Takeshi Oono; Masato Maruyama; Yoshinobu Shimohigashi; Yudai Kai; Yuya Nakamura
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-03-12

4.  Validation of Dolphin dosimetry in three dimensional patient-specific quality assurance programme.

Authors:  Niyas Puzhakkal; Abdullah Kallikuzhiyil Kochunny; Dinesh Makuny; Arun Krishnan M P; Ranjith C Poyil; Vysakh Raveendran
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-08-12

5.  Can clinically relevant dose errors in patient anatomy be detected by gamma passing rate or modulation complexity score in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for intracranial tumors?

Authors:  Shingo Ohira; Yoshihiro Ueda; Masaru Isono; Akira Masaoka; Misaki Hashimoto; Masayoshi Miyazaki; Masaaki Takashina; Masahiko Koizumi; Teruki Teshima
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.724

6.  Clinical implementation and error sensitivity of a 3D quality assurance protocol for prostate and thoracic IMRT.

Authors:  Gueorgui Gueorguiev; Christopher Cotter; Julie Catherine Turcotte; Bruce Crawford; Gregory Sharp; Mufeed Mah'D
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Validation of fluence-based 3D IMRT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom using Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Takeshi Ono; Masato Maruyama; Nozomu Nagasue; Yoshinobu Shimohigashi; Yudai Kai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans.

Authors:  Murugesan Kathirvel; Shanmuga Subramanian; Alessandro Clivio; Gandhi Arun; Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Vellaiyan Subramani; Shanmugam Thirumalai Swamy; Eugenio Vanetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Validation of a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction in SBRT using a new transmission detector.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Takeshi Ono; Masato Maruyama; Yoshinobu Shimohigashi; Yudai Kai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Retrospective dosimetry study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: measurement-guided dose reconstruction and analysis.

Authors:  Wen-Zhao Sun; Dan-Dan Zhang; Ying-Lin Peng; Li Chen; De-Hua Kang; Bin Wang; Xiao-Wu Deng
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.