Literature DB >> 26298076

Rotational output and beam quality evaluations for helical tomotherapy with use of a third-party quality assurance tool.

Hidetoshi Shimizu1, Koji Sasaki2, Manabu Iwata3, Minoru Kawai4, Kuniyasu Nakashima5, Takashi Kubota6, Hikaru Osaki7, Masashi Nakayama8, Manabu Yoshimoto9, Takeshi Kodaira10.   

Abstract

Our aim was to determine whether a third-party quality assurance (QA) tool was suitable for the measurement of rotational output and beam quality in place of on-board detector signals. A Rotational Therapy Phantom 507 (507 Phantom) was used as a QA tool. The rotational output constancy (ROC507) and the beam quality index ([Formula: see text]) were evaluated by analysis of signals from an ion chamber inserted into the 507 Phantom. On-board detector signals were obtained for comparisons with the data from the 507 Phantom. The rotational output (ROC(detector)) and beam quality (corrected cone ratio; CCR) were determined by analysis of on-board detector signals that were generated by irradiation. The tissue phantom ratio at depth 20 and 10 cm (TPR20, 10) was measured with a Farmer-type ionization chamber inserted in a plastic-slab phantom. For rotational output measurement, the correlation coefficient between ROC507 and ROC(detector) values was 0.68 (p < 0.001). ROC507 and ROC(detector) values showed a reduced coefficient of variation after magnetron replacement, which was done during the measurement period. In addition, ROC507 values were reduced significantly along with ROC(detector) values after target replacement (p < 0.001). Regarding the beam quality index, [Formula: see text] showed a change similar to CCR and an increase similar to TPR20, 10 after magnetron/target replacement. This QA tool could check for daily rotational output and detect changes in rotational output and beam quality caused by magnetron or target failure as well as when on-board detector signals were used. Without needing a tomotherapy quality assurance license, we could effectively and quantitatively estimate the rotational output and beam quality at a low cost.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Beam quality; Helical tomotherapy; Rotational output; Tomotherapy quality assurance

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26298076     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-015-0333-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  19 in total

1.  Pitch, roll, and yaw variations in patient positioning.

Authors:  Adeel Kaiser; Timothy E Schultheiss; Jeffrey Y C Wong; David D Smith; Chunhui Han; Nayana L Vora; Richard D Pezner; Yi-Jen Chen; Eric H Radany
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Improvements in dose calculation accuracy for small off-axis targets in high dose per fraction tomotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas Hardcastle; Adam Bayliss; Jeannie Hsiu Ding Wong; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators.

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

4.  The utility of megavoltage computed tomography images from a helical tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes.

Authors:  Lisa J Forrest; Thomas Rockwell Mackie; Ken Ruchala; Michelle Turek; Jeff Kapatoes; Hazim Jaradat; Susanta Hui; John Balog; David M Vail; Minesh P Mehta
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Three-dimensional patient setup errors at different treatment sites measured by the Tomotherapy megavoltage CT.

Authors:  S K Hui; E Lusczek; T DeFor; K Dusenbery; S Levitt
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  The use of exit detector sinograms to detect anatomical variations for patients extending beyond the TomoTherapy field of view: a feasibility study.

Authors:  H Omar Wooten; S Murty Goddu; Vivian Rodriguez; Jeremy Cates; Perry Grigsby; Daniel A Low
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Quality assurance of a helical tomotherapy machine.

Authors:  J D Fenwick; W A Tomé; H A Jaradat; S K Hui; J A James; J P Balog; C N DeSouza; D B Lucas; G H Olivera; T R Mackie; B R Paliwal
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-07-07       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Dosimetric consequences of uncorrected setup errors in helical Tomotherapy treatments of breast-cancer patients.

Authors:  S Murty Goddu; Sridhar Yaddanapudi; Olga L Pechenaya; Summer R Chaudhari; Eric E Klein; Divya Khullar; Issam El Naqa; Sasa Mutic; Sasha Wahab; Lakshmi Santanam; Imran Zoberi; Daniel A Low
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2009-09-03       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  A comprehensive assessment by tumor site of patient setup using daily MVCT imaging from more than 3,800 helical tomotherapy treatments.

Authors:  Leah K Schubert; David C Westerly; Wolfgang A Tomé; Minesh P Mehta; Emilie T Soisson; Thomas R Mackie; Mark A Ritter; Deepak Khuntia; Paul M Harari; Bhudatt R Paliwal
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-03-15       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  A quality assurance tool for helical tomotherapy using a step-wedge phantom and the on-board MVCT detector.

Authors:  Vincent Althof; Paul van Haaren; Rik Westendorp; Tonnis Nuver; Dinant Kramer; Marijke Ikink; Arjen Bel; Andre Minken
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.