Literature DB >> 26632047

Quantifying the performance of in vivo portal dosimetry in detecting four types of treatment parameter variations.

C Bojechko1, E C Ford1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the ability of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry used during treatment (in vivo) in detecting variations that can occur in the course of patient treatment.
METHODS: Images of transmitted radiation from in vivo EPID measurements were converted to a 2D planar dose at isocenter and compared to the treatment planning dose using a prototype software system. Using the treatment planning system (TPS), four different types of variability were modeled: overall dose scaling, shifting the positions of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves, shifting of the patient position, and changes in the patient body contour. The gamma pass rate was calculated for the modified and unmodified plans and used to construct a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the detectability of the different parameter variations. The detectability is given by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The TPS was also used to calculate the impact of the variations on the target dose-volume histogram.
RESULTS: Nine intensity modulation radiation therapy plans were measured for four different anatomical sites consisting of 70 separate fields. Results show that in vivo EPID dosimetry was most sensitive to variations in the machine output, AUC = 0.70 - 0.94, changes in patient body habitus, AUC = 0.67 - 0.88, and systematic shifts in the MLC bank positions, AUC = 0.59 - 0.82. These deviations are expected to have a relatively small clinical impact [planning target volume (PTV) D99 change <7%]. Larger variations have even higher detectability. Displacements in the patient's position and random variations in MLC leaf positions were not readily detectable, AUC < 0.64. The D99 of the PTV changed by up to 57% for the patient position shifts considered here.
CONCLUSIONS: In vivo EPID dosimetry is able to detect relatively small variations in overall dose, systematic shifts of the MLC's, and changes in the patient habitus. Shifts in the patient's position which can introduce large changes in the target dose coverage were not readily detected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26632047     DOI: 10.1118/1.4935093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  14 in total

1.  In vivo dosimetry for patients with prostate cancer to assess possible impact of bladder and rectum preparation.

Authors:  Yawo A C Fiagan; Evy Bossuyt; Daan Nevens; Piet Dirix; Frank Theys; Thierry Gevaert; Dirk Verellen
Journal:  Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-11-24

2.  Radiosurgical Treatment Verification Using Removable Megavoltage Radiation Detectors.

Authors:  Cesare H Jenkins; Robert Kahn; Georg A Weidlich; John R Adler
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-11-29

3.  Verification of the delivered patient radiation dose for non-coplanar beam therapy.

Authors:  Ivan Kutuzov; Timothy Van Beek; Boyd M C McCurdy
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Onboard cone-beam CT-based replan evaluation for head and neck proton therapy.

Authors:  Alexander Stanforth; Liyong Lin; Jonathan J Beitler; James R Janopaul-Naylor; Chih-Wei Chang; Robert H Press; Sagar A Patel; Jennifer Zhao; Bree Eaton; Eduard E Schreibmann; James Jung; Duncan Bohannon; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang; Mark W McDonald; Jun Zhou
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 2.243

5.  IMRT QA using machine learning: A multi-institutional validation.

Authors:  Gilmer Valdes; Maria F Chan; Seng Boh Lim; Ryan Scheuermann; Joseph O Deasy; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Investigating the effectiveness of monitoring relevant variations during IMRT and VMAT treatments by EPID-based 3D in vivo verification performed using planning CTs.

Authors:  Yinghui Li; Jinhan Zhu; Jinping Shi; Lixin Chen; Xiaowei Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  In vivo dosimetry in external beam photon radiotherapy: Requirements and future directions for research, development, and clinical practice.

Authors:  Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz; Sam Beddar; Peter Greer; Nuria Jornet; Boyd McCurdy; Gabriel Paiva-Fonseca; Ben Mijnheer; Frank Verhaegen
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-08-29

8.  Evaluation of automated pre-treatment and transit in-vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy using empirically determined parameters.

Authors:  Evy Bossuyt; Reinhilde Weytjens; Daan Nevens; Sarah De Vos; Dirk Verellen
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-11-09

9.  Optimisation of a composite difference metric for prompt error detection in real-time portal dosimetry of simulated volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  James L Bedford; Ian M Hanson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Impact of the MLC leaf-tip model in a commercial TPS: Dose calculation limitations and IROC-H phantom failures.

Authors:  Brandon Koger; Ryan Price; Da Wang; Dolla Toomeh; Sarah Geneser; Eric Ford
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.