Literature DB >> 24416540

Pretreatment verification of dose calculation and delivery by means of measurements with PLEXITOM™ phantom.

Paweł Wołowiec1, Paweł Kukołowicz2, Krzysztof Lis1.   

Abstract

AIM: To validate a pretreatment verification method of dose calculation and dose delivery based on measurements with Metaplex PTW phantom.
BACKGROUND: The dose-response relationships for local tumor control and radiosensitive tissue complications are strong. It is widely accepted that an accuracy of dose delivery of about 3.5% (one standard deviation) is required in modern radiotherapy. This goal is difficult to achieve. This paper describes our experience with the control of dose delivery and calculations at the ICRU reference point.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculations of dose at the ICRU reference point performed with the treatment planning system CMS XiO were checked by measurements carried out in the PLEXITOM™ phantom. All measurements were performed with the ion chamber positioned in the phantom, at the central axis of the beam, at depth equivalent to the radiological depth (at gantry zero position). The source-to-phantom surface distance was always set to keep the source-to-detector distance equal to the reference point depth defined in the ICRU Report 50 (generally, 100 cm). The dose was measured according to IAEA TRS 398 report for measurements in solid phantoms. The measurement results were corrected with the actual accelerator's output factor and for the non-full scatter conditions. Measurements were made for 111 patients and 327 fields.
RESULTS: The average differences between measurements and calculations were 0.03% (SD = 1.4%), 0.3% (SD = 1.0%), 0.1% (SD = 1.1%), 0.6% (SD = 1.8%), 0.3% (SD = 1.5%) for all measurements, for total dose, for pelvis, thorax and H&N patients, respectively. Only in 15 cases (4.6%), the difference between the measured and the calculated dose was greater than 3%. For these fields, a detailed analysis was undertaken.
CONCLUSION: The verification method provides an instantaneous verification of dose calculations before the beginning of a patient's treatment. It allows to detect differences smaller than 3.5%.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PLEXITOM™; Quality control; Radiotherapy; Treatment plan verification

Year:  2013        PMID: 24416540      PMCID: PMC3863258          DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2012.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother        ISSN: 1507-1367


  20 in total

1.  Error in the delivery of radiation therapy: results of a quality assurance review.

Authors:  Grace Huang; Gaylene Medlam; Justin Lee; Susan Billingsley; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Jolie Ringash; Gabrielle Kane; David C Hodgson
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-04-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Incidents analysis in radiation therapy: application of the human factors analysis and classification system.

Authors:  Maurizio Portaluri; Fulvio I M Fucilli; Santa Bambace; Roberta Castagna; Maria Chiara De Luca; Giorgio Pili; Vittorio Didonna; Francesco Tramacere; Maria Carmen Francavilla; Angela Leone; Maria Grazia Leo
Journal:  Ann Ist Super Sanita       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.663

3.  What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neutron therapy?

Authors:  B J Mijnheer; J J Battermann; A Wambersie
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  In vivo dosimetry during conformal radiotherapy: requirements for and findings of a routine procedure.

Authors:  J H Lanson; M Essers; G J Meijer; A W Minken; G J Uiterwaal; B J Mijnheer
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  First results of the federal quality assurance group ("Arztliche Stelle") in radiotherapy in Baden-Württemberg: part 2.

Authors:  Hans Hawighorst; Frederik Wenz; Norbert Hodapp; Gerd Becker
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Independent checking of the delivered dose for high-energy X-rays using a hand-held PC.

Authors:  T Knöös; S A Johnsson; C P Ceberg; A Tomaszewicz; P Nilsson
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 6.280

7.  The impact of treatment complexity and computer-control delivery technology on treatment delivery errors.

Authors:  B A Fraass; K L Lash; G M Matrone; S K Volkman; D L McShan; M L Kessler; A S Lichter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  A verification procedure to improve patient set-up accuracy using portal images.

Authors:  A Bel; M van Herk; H Bartelink; J V Lebesque
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  Intra-fractional uncertainties in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Buelent Polat; Iris Guenther; Juergen Wilbert; Joachim Goebel; Reinhart A Sweeney; Michael Flentje; Matthias Guckenberger
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Errors in radiation oncology: a study in pathways and dosimetric impact.

Authors:  Eric E Klein; Robert E Drzymala; James A Purdy; Jeff Michalski
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2005-08-12       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.