Literature DB >> 28079525

A model-based 3D patient-specific pre-treatment QA method for VMAT using the EPID.

P M McCowan1, G Asuni, T van Beek, E van Uytven, K Kujanpaa, B M C McCurdy.   

Abstract

This study reports the development and validation of a model-based, 3D patient dose reconstruction method for pre-treatment quality assurance using EPID images. The method is also investigated for sensitivity to potential MLC delivery errors. Each cine-mode EPID image acquired during plan delivery was processed using a previously developed back-projection dose reconstruction model providing a 3D dose estimate on the CT simulation data. Validation was carried out using 24 SBRT-VMAT patient plans by comparing: (1) ion chamber point dose measurements in a solid water phantom, (2) the treatment planning system (TPS) predicted 3D dose to the EPID reconstructed 3D dose in a solid water phantom, and (3) the TPS predicted 3D dose to the EPID and our forward predicted reconstructed 3D dose in the patient (CT data). AAA and AcurosXB were used for TPS predictions. Dose distributions were compared using 3%/3 mm (95% tolerance) and 2%/2 mm (90% tolerance) γ-tests in the planning target volume (PTV) and 20% dose volumes. The average percentage point dose differences between the ion chamber and the EPID, AcurosXB, and AAA were 0.73  ±  1.25%, 0.38  ±  0.96% and 1.06  ±  1.34% respectively. For the patient (CT) dose comparisons, seven (3%/3 mm) and nine (2%/2 mm) plans failed the EPID versus AAA. All plans passed the EPID versus Acuros XB and the EPID versus forward model γ-comparisons. Four types of MLC sensitive errors (opening, shifting, stuck, and retracting), of varying magnitude (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mm), were introduced into six different SBRT-VMAT plans. γ-comparisons of the erroneous EPID dose and original predicted dose were carried out using the same criteria as above. For all plans, the sensitivity testing using a 3%/3 mm γ-test in the PTV successfully determined MLC errors on the order of 1.0 mm, except for the single leaf retraction-type error. A 2%/2 mm criteria produced similar results with two more additional detected errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28079525     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa590a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  4 in total

1.  Electronic Portal Imaging Device-Based Three-Dimensional Volumetric Dosimetry for Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Pretreatment Quality Assurance.

Authors:  Manikandan Arjunan; Sureka Chandra Sekaran; Biplab Sarkar; Saran Kumar Manavalan
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

Review 2.  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

3.  Extending in aqua portal dosimetry with dose inhomogeneity conversion maps for accurate patient dose reconstruction in external beam radiotherapy.

Authors:  Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz; Julia-Maria Osinga-Blaettermann; Karen Ortega-Marin; Ben Mijnheer; Anton Mans
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-14

4.  Validation of new transmission detector transmission factors for online dosimetry: an experimental study.

Authors:  So-Yeon Park; Jong Min Park; Jung-In Kim; Sungyoung Lee; Chang Heon Choi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 3.481

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.