Livia Marrazzo1, Chiara Arilli2, Marlies Pasler3, Martijn Kusters4, Richard Canters4, Luca Fedeli5, Silvia Calusi5, Marta Casati2, Cinzia Talamonti2,5, Gabriele Simontacchi6, Lorenzo Livi5,6, Stefania Pallotta2,5. 1. Medical Physic Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. livia.marrazzo@unifi.it. 2. Medical Physic Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. 3. Lake Constance Radiation Oncology Center, Singen-Friedrichshafen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "Mario Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 6. Radiation Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the sensitivity of a transmission detector for online dose monitoring of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for detecting small delivery errors. Furthermore, the correlation of changes in detector output induced by small delivery errors with other metrics commonly employed to quantify the deviations between calculated and delivered dose distributions was investigated. METHODS: Transmission detector measurements were performed at three institutions. Seven types of errors were induced in nine clinical step-and-shoot (S&S) IMRT plans by modifying the number of monitor units (MU) and introducing small deviations in leaf positions. Signal reproducibility was investigated for short- and long-term stability. Calculated dose distributions were compared in terms of γ passing rates and dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics (e.g., Dmean, Dx%, Vx%). The correlation between detector signal variations, γ passing rates, and DVH parameters was investigated. RESULTS: Both short- and long-term reproducibility was within 1%. Dose variations down to 1 MU (∆signal 1.1 ± 0.4%) as well as changes in field size and positions down to 1 mm (∆signal 2.6 ± 1.0%) were detected, thus indicating high error-detection sensitivity. A moderate correlation of detector signal was observed with γ passing rates (R2 = 0.57-0.70), while a good correlation was observed with DVH metrics (R2 = 0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: The detector is capable of detecting small delivery errors in MU and leaf positions, and is thus a highly sensitive dose monitoring device for S&S IMRT for clinical practice. The results of this study indicate a good correlation of detector signal with DVH metrics; therefore, clinical action levels can be defined based on the presented data.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the sensitivity of a transmission detector for online dose monitoring of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for detecting small delivery errors. Furthermore, the correlation of changes in detector output induced by small delivery errors with other metrics commonly employed to quantify the deviations between calculated and delivered dose distributions was investigated. METHODS: Transmission detector measurements were performed at three institutions. Seven types of errors were induced in nine clinical step-and-shoot (S&S) IMRT plans by modifying the number of monitor units (MU) and introducing small deviations in leaf positions. Signal reproducibility was investigated for short- and long-term stability. Calculated dose distributions were compared in terms of γ passing rates and dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics (e.g., Dmean, Dx%, Vx%). The correlation between detector signal variations, γ passing rates, and DVH parameters was investigated. RESULTS: Both short- and long-term reproducibility was within 1%. Dose variations down to 1 MU (∆signal 1.1 ± 0.4%) as well as changes in field size and positions down to 1 mm (∆signal 2.6 ± 1.0%) were detected, thus indicating high error-detection sensitivity. A moderate correlation of detector signal was observed with γ passing rates (R2 = 0.57-0.70), while a good correlation was observed with DVH metrics (R2 = 0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: The detector is capable of detecting small delivery errors in MU and leaf positions, and is thus a highly sensitive dose monitoring device for S&S IMRT for clinical practice. The results of this study indicate a good correlation of detector signal with DVH metrics; therefore, clinical action levels can be defined based on the presented data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Detector sensitivity; Online dose verification; Organs at risk; Quality Assurance, health care; Transmission detector
Authors: J H D Wong; I Fuduli; M Carolan; M Petasecca; M L F Lerch; V L Perevertaylo; P Metcalfe; A B Rosenfeld Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mohammad K Islam; Bernhard D Norrlinger; Jason R Smale; Robert K Heaton; Duncan Galbraith; Cary Fan; David A Jaffray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jina Chang; Robert K Heaton; Robert Mahon; Bernhard D Norrlinger; David A Jaffray; Young-Bin Cho; Mohammad K Islam Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kananan Utitsarn; Giordano Biasi; Nauljun Stansook; Ziyad A Alrowaili; Marco Petasecca; Martin Carolan; Vladimir L Perevertaylo; Wolfgang A Tomé; Tomas Kron; Michael L F Lerch; Anatoly B Rosenfeld Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 2.102