M Jermoumi1, H Korideck2, M Bhagwat2, P Zygmanski2, G M Makrigiogos2, R I Berbeco2, R C Cormack2, W Ngwa3. 1. Department of Applied Physics, Medical Physics Program, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, MA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: mohammed_jermoumi@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Applied Physics, Medical Physics Program, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, MA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and test the suitability and performance of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) phantom for the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform (SARRP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A QA phantom was developed for carrying out daily, monthly and annual QA tasks including: imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning system (TPS) performance evaluation of the SARRP. The QA phantom consists of 15 (60 × 60 × 5 mm(3)) kV-energy tissue equivalent solid water slabs. The phantom can incorporate optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD), Mosfet or film. One slab, with inserts and another slab with hole patterns are particularly designed for image QA. RESULTS: Output constancy measurement results showed daily variations within 3%. Using the Mosfet in phantom as target, results showed that the difference between TPS calculations and measurements was within 5%. Annual QA results for the Percentage depth dose (PDD) curves, lateral beam profiles, beam flatness and beam profile symmetry were found consistent with results obtained at commissioning. PDD curves obtained using film and OSLDs showed good agreement. Image QA was performed monthly, with image-quality parameters assessed in terms of CBCT image geometric accuracy, CT number accuracy, image spatial resolution, noise and image uniformity. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the developed QA phantom can be employed as a tool for comprehensive performance evaluation of the SARRP. The study provides a useful reference for development of a comprehensive quality assurance program for the SARRP and other similar small animal irradiators, with proposed tolerances and frequency of required tests.
PURPOSE: To develop and test the suitability and performance of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) phantom for the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform (SARRP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A QA phantom was developed for carrying out daily, monthly and annual QA tasks including: imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning system (TPS) performance evaluation of the SARRP. The QA phantom consists of 15 (60 × 60 × 5 mm(3)) kV-energy tissue equivalent solid water slabs. The phantom can incorporate optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD), Mosfet or film. One slab, with inserts and another slab with hole patterns are particularly designed for image QA. RESULTS: Output constancy measurement results showed daily variations within 3%. Using the Mosfet in phantom as target, results showed that the difference between TPS calculations and measurements was within 5%. Annual QA results for the Percentage depth dose (PDD) curves, lateral beam profiles, beam flatness and beam profile symmetry were found consistent with results obtained at commissioning. PDD curves obtained using film and OSLDs showed good agreement. Image QA was performed monthly, with image-quality parameters assessed in terms of CBCT image geometric accuracy, CT number accuracy, image spatial resolution, noise and image uniformity. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the developed QA phantom can be employed as a tool for comprehensive performance evaluation of the SARRP. The study provides a useful reference for development of a comprehensive quality assurance program for the SARRP and other similar small animal irradiators, with proposed tolerances and frequency of required tests.
Authors: Wilfred Ngwa; Panagiotis Tsiamas; Piotr Zygmanski; G Mike Makrigiorgos; Ross I Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mohammad Matinfar; Owen Gray; Iulian Iordachita; Chris Kennedy; Eric Ford; John Wong; Russell H Taylor; Peter Kazanzides Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2007
Authors: Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 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: Tsuicheng D Chiu; Tatsuya J Arai; James Campbell Iii; Steve B Jiang; Ralph P Mason; Strahinja Stojadinovic Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michele M Kim; Peyton Irmen; Khayrullo Shoniyozov; Ioannis I Verginadis; Keith A Cengel; Costantinos Koumenis; James M Metz; Lei Dong; Eric S Diffenderfer Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 3.609