Iban Torres-Xirau1, Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz2, Jochem Kaas3, Marlies E Nowee3, Uulke A van der Heide3, Anton Mans3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: i.torres@nki.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: i.olaciregui@nki.nl. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: 3D dosimetric verification of online adaptive workflows is essential as their complexity is unprecedented in radiation oncology. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of back-projection portal dosimetry for 3D dosimetric verification of Unity MR-linac treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An earlier presented 2D back-projection algorithm for the Unity MR-linac geometry was extended for 3D dose reconstruction and comparison against planned dose distributions. 'In-air' as well as in-vivo portal EPID images can be used as input. The method was validated using data from treatments of 5 patients (2 rectal, 2 prostate cancer and one oligo metastasis). 3D pre-treatment verification of the reference plan using 'in-air' EPID images was performed and compared against measured (with the Octavius 4D system) and planned (in the planning CT) dose distributions. In-vivo EPID dose distributions were compared to the TPS for the first three adaptations of all treatments. For all comparisons, dose difference values at the reference point and γ-parameters were reported. RESULTS: The comparison against the OCTAVIUS 4D system (3%, 2 mm, local) showed y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.10 and y-passrate = 91.9%, 95% CI [85.4, 98.4], and ΔDRP = -0.1 ± 1.1%. Pre-treatment verification against TPS data (3%, 2 mm, global) showed y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.04, y-passrate = 93.5%, 95% CI [92.4, 94.6] and ΔDRP = -0.9 ± 1.5%. The averaged y-results for the in-vivo 3D verification were y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.05, y-passrate = 92.5%, 95% CI [90.2, 94.8] and ΔDRP = 0.8 ± 2.1%. CONCLUSION: 3D dosimetric verification of Unity MR-linac treatments using portal dosimetry is feasible, pre-treatment as well as in-vivo.
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: 3D dosimetric verification of online adaptive workflows is essential as their complexity is unprecedented in radiation oncology. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of back-projection portal dosimetry for 3D dosimetric verification of Unity MR-linac treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An earlier presented 2D back-projection algorithm for the Unity MR-linac geometry was extended for 3D dose reconstruction and comparison against planned dose distributions. 'In-air' as well as in-vivo portal EPID images can be used as input. The method was validated using data from treatments of 5 patients (2 rectal, 2 prostate cancer and one oligo metastasis). 3D pre-treatment verification of the reference plan using 'in-air' EPID images was performed and compared against measured (with the Octavius 4D system) and planned (in the planning CT) dose distributions. In-vivo EPID dose distributions were compared to the TPS for the first three adaptations of all treatments. For all comparisons, dose difference values at the reference point and γ-parameters were reported. RESULTS: The comparison against the OCTAVIUS 4D system (3%, 2 mm, local) showed y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.10 and y-passrate = 91.9%, 95% CI [85.4, 98.4], and ΔDRP = -0.1 ± 1.1%. Pre-treatment verification against TPS data (3%, 2 mm, global) showed y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.04, y-passrate = 93.5%, 95% CI [92.4, 94.6] and ΔDRP = -0.9 ± 1.5%. The averaged y-results for the in-vivo 3D verification were y-mean = 0.52 ± 0.05, y-passrate = 92.5%, 95% CI [90.2, 94.8] and ΔDRP = 0.8 ± 2.1%. CONCLUSION: 3D dosimetric verification of Unity MR-linac treatments using portal dosimetry is feasible, pre-treatment as well as in-vivo.