Motoharu Sasaki1, Wataru Sugimoto2, Hitoshi Ikushima1. 1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-cho, Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8503, Japan. 2. Department of Radiological Technology, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, 1-10-3 Kuramoto-cho, Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8539, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: In many facilities, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) use intensity-modulated beams, formed by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC). In IMRT and VMAT, MLC and linear accelerator errors (both geometric and dose), can significantly affect the doses administered to patients. Therefore, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans must include the use of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) before treatment to confirm dose accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we compared and analyzed the results of dose verification using a multi-dimensional dose verification system Delta4 PT, an ionization chamber dosimeter, and gafchromic film, using data from 52 patients undergoing head and neck VMAT as the test material. RESULT: Based on the results of the absolute dose verification for the ionization chamber dosimeter and Delta4 PT, taking an axial view, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 3.13%, and the lower limit was -3.67%, indicating good agreement. These results mean that as long as absolute dose verification for the axial view does not deviate from this range, Delta4 PT can be used as an alternative to an ionization chamber dosimeter for absolute dose verification. When we then reviewed dose distribution verification, the pass rate for Delta4 PT was acceptable, and was less varied than that of gafchromic film. CONCLUSION: This results in that provided the pass rate result for Delta4 PT does not fall below 96%, it can be used as a substitute for gafchromic film in dose distribution verification. These results indicate that patient-specific QA could be simplified.
BACKGROUND/AIM: In many facilities, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) use intensity-modulated beams, formed by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC). In IMRT and VMAT, MLC and linear accelerator errors (both geometric and dose), can significantly affect the doses administered to patients. Therefore, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans must include the use of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) before treatment to confirm dose accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we compared and analyzed the results of dose verification using a multi-dimensional dose verification system Delta4 PT, an ionization chamber dosimeter, and gafchromic film, using data from 52 patients undergoing head and neck VMAT as the test material. RESULT: Based on the results of the absolute dose verification for the ionization chamber dosimeter and Delta4 PT, taking an axial view, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 3.13%, and the lower limit was -3.67%, indicating good agreement. These results mean that as long as absolute dose verification for the axial view does not deviate from this range, Delta4 PT can be used as an alternative to an ionization chamber dosimeter for absolute dose verification. When we then reviewed dose distribution verification, the pass rate for Delta4 PT was acceptable, and was less varied than that of gafchromic film. CONCLUSION: This results in that provided the pass rate result for Delta4 PT does not fall below 96%, it can be used as a substitute for gafchromic film in dose distribution verification. These results indicate that patient-specific QA could be simplified.
Authors: Gary A Ezzell; James M Galvin; Daniel Low; Jatinder R Palta; Isaac Rosen; Michael B Sharpe; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Lei Xing; Cedric X Yu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Gary A Ezzell; Jay W Burmeister; Nesrin Dogan; Thomas J LoSasso; James G Mechalakos; Dimitris Mihailidis; Andrea Molineu; Jatinder R Palta; Chester R Ramsey; Bill J Salter; Jie Shi; Ping Xia; Ning J Yue; Ying Xiao Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Moyed Miften; Arthur Olch; Dimitris Mihailidis; Jean Moran; Todd Pawlicki; Andrea Molineu; Harold Li; Krishni Wijesooriya; Jie Shi; Ping Xia; Nikos Papanikolaou; Daniel A Low Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Elizabeth M McKenzie; Peter A Balter; Francesco C Stingo; Jimmy Jones; David S Followill; Stephen F Kry Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102