PURPOSE: This work describes a patient-specific dosimetry quality assurance (QA) program for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using ViewRay, the first commercial magnetic resonance imaging-guided RT device. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The program consisted of: (1) a 1-dimensional multipoint ionization chamber measurement using a customized 15-cm(3) cube-shaped phantom; (2) 2-dimensional (2D) radiographic film measurement using a 30- × 30- × 20-cm(3) phantom with multiple inserted ionization chambers; (3) quasi-3D diode array (ArcCHECK) measurement with a centrally inserted ionization chamber; (4) 2D fluence verification using machine delivery log files; and (5) 3D Monte Carlo (MC) dose reconstruction with machine delivery files and phantom CT. RESULTS: Ionization chamber measurements agreed well with treatment planning system (TPS)-computed doses in all phantom geometries where the mean ± SD difference was 0.0% ± 1.3% (n=102; range, -3.0%-2.9%). Film measurements also showed excellent agreement with the TPS-computed 2D dose distributions where the mean passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 94.6% ± 3.4% (n=30; range, 87.4%-100%). For ArcCHECK measurements, the mean ± SD passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 98.9% ± 1.1% (n=34; range, 95.8%-100%). 2D fluence maps with a resolution of 1 × 1 mm(2) showed 100% passing rates for all plan deliveries (n=34). The MC reconstructed doses to the phantom agreed well with planned 3D doses where the mean passing rate using 3% absolute/3 mm gamma criteria was 99.0% ± 1.0% (n=18; range, 97.0%-100%), demonstrating the feasibility of evaluating the QA results in the patient geometry. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a dosimetry program for ViewRay's patient-specific IMRT QA. The methodology will be useful for other ViewRay users. The QA results presented here can assist the RT community to establish appropriate tolerance and action limits for ViewRay's IMRT QA.
PURPOSE: This work describes a patient-specific dosimetry quality assurance (QA) program for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using ViewRay, the first commercial magnetic resonance imaging-guided RT device. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The program consisted of: (1) a 1-dimensional multipoint ionization chamber measurement using a customized 15-cm(3) cube-shaped phantom; (2) 2-dimensional (2D) radiographic film measurement using a 30- × 30- × 20-cm(3) phantom with multiple inserted ionization chambers; (3) quasi-3D diode array (ArcCHECK) measurement with a centrally inserted ionization chamber; (4) 2D fluence verification using machine delivery log files; and (5) 3D Monte Carlo (MC) dose reconstruction with machine delivery files and phantom CT. RESULTS:Ionization chamber measurements agreed well with treatment planning system (TPS)-computed doses in all phantom geometries where the mean ± SD difference was 0.0% ± 1.3% (n=102; range, -3.0%-2.9%). Film measurements also showed excellent agreement with the TPS-computed 2D dose distributions where the mean passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 94.6% ± 3.4% (n=30; range, 87.4%-100%). For ArcCHECK measurements, the mean ± SD passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 98.9% ± 1.1% (n=34; range, 95.8%-100%). 2D fluence maps with a resolution of 1 × 1 mm(2) showed 100% passing rates for all plan deliveries (n=34). The MC reconstructed doses to the phantom agreed well with planned 3D doses where the mean passing rate using 3% absolute/3 mm gamma criteria was 99.0% ± 1.0% (n=18; range, 97.0%-100%), demonstrating the feasibility of evaluating the QA results in the patient geometry. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a dosimetry program for ViewRay's patient-specific IMRT QA. The methodology will be useful for other ViewRay users. The QA results presented here can assist the RT community to establish appropriate tolerance and action limits for ViewRay's IMRT QA.
Authors: Jakub Kozelka; Joshua Robinson; Benjamin Nelms; Geoffrey Zhang; Dennis Savitskij; Vladimir Feygelman Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 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: Yuhe Wang; Thomas R Mazur; Olga Green; Yanle Hu; Hua Li; Vivian Rodriguez; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Tianyu Zhao; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Brigid A McDonald; Sastry Vedam; Jinzhong Yang; Jihong Wang; Pamela Castillo; Belinda Lee; Angela Sobremonte; Sara Ahmed; Yao Ding; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Peter Balter; Neil Hughes; Daniela Thorwarth; Marcel Nachbar; Marielle E P Philippens; Chris H J Terhaard; Daniel Zips; Simon Böke; Musaddiq J Awan; John Christodouleas; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Deshan Yang; H Omar Wooten; Olga Green; Harold H Li; Shi Liu; Xiaoling Li; Vivian Rodriguez; Sasa Mutic; Rojano Kashani Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Allen M Chen; Minsong Cao; Sophia Hsu; James Lamb; Argin Mikaeilian; Yingli Yang; Nzhde Agazaryan; Daniel A Low; Michael L Steinberg Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-02-21
Authors: Christopher Kurz; Giulia Buizza; Guillaume Landry; Florian Kamp; Moritz Rabe; Chiara Paganelli; Guido Baroni; Michael Reiner; Paul J Keall; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Marco Riboldi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 3.481