Mathieu Goulet1, Madison Rilling2, Luc Gingras1, Sam Beddar3, Luc Beaulieu1, Louis Archambault1. 1. Département de physique, de génie physique et d'optique and Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Québec, Québec G1V 0A6, Canada and Département de radio-oncologie and CRCHU de Québec, CHU de Québec, 11 Côte du Palais, Québec, Québec G1R 2J6, Canada. 2. Département de physique, de génie physique et d'optique and Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Québec, Québec G1V 0A6, Canada; Département de radio-oncologie and CRCHU de Québec, CHU de Québec, 11 Côte du Palais, Québec, Québec G1R 2J6, Canada; and Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3A 0G4, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 94, Houston, Texas 77030.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of dynamic radiotherapy delivery would gain from being performed using a 3D dosimeter. However, 3D dosimeters, such as gels, have many disadvantages limiting to quality assurance, such as tedious read-out procedures and poor reproducibility. The purpose of this work is to develop and validate a novel type of high resolution 3D dosimeter based on the real-time light acquisition of a plastic scintillator volume using a plenoptic camera. This dosimeter would allow for the QA of dynamic radiation therapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A Raytrix R5 plenoptic camera was used to image a 10 × 10 × 10 cm(3) EJ-260 plastic scintillator embedded inside an acrylic phantom at a rate of one acquisition per second. The scintillator volume was irradiated with both an IMRT and VMAT treatment plan on a Clinac iX linear accelerator. The 3D light distribution emitted by the scintillator volume was reconstructed at a 2 mm resolution in all dimensions by back-projecting the light collected by each pixel of the light-field camera using an iterative reconstruction algorithm. The latter was constrained by a beam's eye view projection of the incident dose acquired using the portal imager integrated with the linac and by physical consideration of the dose behavior as a function of depth in the phantom. RESULTS: The absolute dose difference between the reconstructed 3D dose and the expected dose calculated using the treatment planning software Pinnacle(3) was on average below 1.5% of the maximum dose for both integrated IMRT and VMAT deliveries, and below 3% for each individual IMRT incidences. Dose agreement between the reconstructed 3D dose and a radiochromic film acquisition in the same experimental phantom was on average within 2.1% and 1.2% of the maximum recorded dose for the IMRT and VMAT delivery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using plenoptic camera technology, the authors were able to perform millimeter resolution, water-equivalent dosimetry of an IMRT and VMAT plan over a whole 3D volume. Since no moving parts are required in the dosimeter, the incident dose distribution can be acquired as a function of time, thus enabling the validation of static and dynamic radiation delivery with photons, electrons, and heavier ions.
PURPOSE:Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of dynamic radiotherapy delivery would gain from being performed using a 3D dosimeter. However, 3D dosimeters, such as gels, have many disadvantages limiting to quality assurance, such as tedious read-out procedures and poor reproducibility. The purpose of this work is to develop and validate a novel type of high resolution 3D dosimeter based on the real-time light acquisition of a plastic scintillator volume using a plenoptic camera. This dosimeter would allow for the QA of dynamic radiation therapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A Raytrix R5 plenoptic camera was used to image a 10 × 10 × 10 cm(3) EJ-260 plastic scintillator embedded inside an acrylic phantom at a rate of one acquisition per second. The scintillator volume was irradiated with both an IMRT and VMAT treatment plan on a Clinac iX linear accelerator. The 3D light distribution emitted by the scintillator volume was reconstructed at a 2 mm resolution in all dimensions by back-projecting the light collected by each pixel of the light-field camera using an iterative reconstruction algorithm. The latter was constrained by a beam's eye view projection of the incident dose acquired using the portal imager integrated with the linac and by physical consideration of the dose behavior as a function of depth in the phantom. RESULTS: The absolute dose difference between the reconstructed 3D dose and the expected dose calculated using the treatment planning software Pinnacle(3) was on average below 1.5% of the maximum dose for both integrated IMRT and VMAT deliveries, and below 3% for each individual IMRT incidences. Dose agreement between the reconstructed 3D dose and a radiochromic film acquisition in the same experimental phantom was on average within 2.1% and 1.2% of the maximum recorded dose for the IMRT and VMAT delivery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using plenoptic camera technology, the authors were able to perform millimeter resolution, water-equivalent dosimetry of an IMRT and VMAT plan over a whole 3D volume. Since no moving parts are required in the dosimeter, the incident dose distribution can be acquired as a function of time, thus enabling the validation of static and dynamic radiation delivery with photons, electrons, and heavier ions.
Authors: Sam Beddar; Louis Archambault; Narayan Sahoo; Falk Poenisch; George T Chen; Michael T Gillin; Radhe Mohan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Adam K Glaser; Scott C Davis; David M McClatchy; Rongxiao Zhang; Brian W Pogue; David J Gladstone Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: T R Mackie; T Holmes; S Swerdloff; P Reckwerdt; J O Deasy; J Yang; B Paliwal; T Kinsella Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C Baldock; Y De Deene; S Doran; G Ibbott; A Jirasek; M Lepage; K B McAuley; M Oldham; L J Schreiner Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Muhammad Ramish Ashraf; Petr Bruza; Brian W Pogue; Nathan Nelson; Benjamin B Williams; Lesley A Jarvis; David J Gladstone Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Petr Bruza; Jacqueline M Andreozzi; David J Gladstone; Lesley A Jarvis; Joerg Rottmann; Brian W Pogue Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Emil Schüler; Munjal Acharya; Pierre Montay-Gruel; Billy W Loo; Marie-Catherine Vozenin; Peter G Maxim Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Daniel Haffa; Rong Yang; Jianhui Bin; Sebastian Lehrack; Florian-Emanuel Brack; Hao Ding; Franz S Englbrecht; Ying Gao; Johannes Gebhard; Max Gilljohann; Johannes Götzfried; Jens Hartmann; Sebastian Herr; Peter Hilz; Stephan D Kraft; Christian Kreuzer; Florian Kroll; Florian H Lindner; Josefine Metzkes-Ng; Tobias M Ostermayr; Enrico Ridente; Thomas F Rösch; Gregor Schilling; Hans-Peter Schlenvoigt; Martin Speicher; Derya Taray; Matthias Würl; Karl Zeil; Ulrich Schramm; Stefan Karsch; Katia Parodi; Paul R Bolton; Walter Assmann; Jörg Schreiber Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 4.379