M Esposito1, A Piermattei2, S Bresciani3, L C Orlandini4, M D Falco5, S Giancaterino5, S Cilla6, A Ianiro6, R Nigro7, L Botez3, S Riccardi7, A Fidanzio2, F Greco2, E Villaggi8, S Russo9, M Stasi10. 1. S. C. Fisica Sanitaria Firenze-Empoli, Medical Physics Unit of Radiation Oncology Dept., Azienda Sanitaria USL Toscana Centro Florence, Via dell'Antella 58, 50012, Bagno a Ripoli, Firenze, Italy. marco1.esposito@uslcentro.toscana.it. 2. UOC di Fisica Sanitaria, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 3. Medical Physics, Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO IRCCS, Turin, Italy. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China. 5. Dipartimento di Radioterapia, Università di Chieti, Chieti, Italy. 6. Medical Physics Unit, Fondazione di ricerca e cura "Giovanni Paolo II", Campobasso, Italy. 7. OGP S. Camillo de Lellis, Rieti, Italy. 8. AUSL Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy. 9. S. C. Fisica Sanitaria Firenze-Empoli, Azienda Sanitaria USL Toscana Centro Florence, Florence, Italy. 10. S.C. Fisica Sanitaria, A.O. Ordine Mauriziano di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate critical aspects and effectiveness of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) tests obtained by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in a multicenter and multisystem context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight centers with three commercial systems-SoftDiso (SD, Best Medical Italy, Chianciano, Italy), Dosimetry Check (DC, Math Resolution, LCC), and PerFRACTION (PF, Sun Nuclear Corporation, SNC, Melbourne, FL)-collected IVD results for a total of 2002 patients and 32,276 tests. Data are summarized for IVD software, radiotherapy technique, and anatomical site. Every center reported the number of patients and tests analyzed, and the percentage of tests outside of the tolerance level (OTL%). OTL% was categorized as being due to incorrect patient setup, incorrect use of immobilization devices, incorrect dose computation, anatomical variations, and unknown causes. RESULTS: The three systems use different approaches and customized alert indices, based on local protocols. For Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments OTL% mean values were up to 8.9% for SD, 18.0% for DC, and 16.0% for PF. Errors due to "anatomical variations" for head and neck were up to 9.0% for SD and DC and 8.0% for PF systems, while for abdomen and pelvis/prostate treatments were up to 9%, 17.0%, and 9.0% for SD, DC, and PF, respectively. The comparison among techniques gave 3% for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, 7.0% (range 4.7-8.9%) for VMAT, 10.4% (range 7.0-12.2%) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 13.2% (range 8.8-21.0%) for 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with different IVD software and among centers were consistent and showed an acceptable homogeneity. EPID IVD was effective in intercepting important errors.
PURPOSE: To investigate critical aspects and effectiveness of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) tests obtained by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in a multicenter and multisystem context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight centers with three commercial systems-SoftDiso (SD, Best Medical Italy, Chianciano, Italy), Dosimetry Check (DC, Math Resolution, LCC), and PerFRACTION (PF, Sun Nuclear Corporation, SNC, Melbourne, FL)-collected IVD results for a total of 2002 patients and 32,276 tests. Data are summarized for IVD software, radiotherapy technique, and anatomical site. Every center reported the number of patients and tests analyzed, and the percentage of tests outside of the tolerance level (OTL%). OTL% was categorized as being due to incorrect patient setup, incorrect use of immobilization devices, incorrect dose computation, anatomical variations, and unknown causes. RESULTS: The three systems use different approaches and customized alert indices, based on local protocols. For Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments OTL% mean values were up to 8.9% for SD, 18.0% for DC, and 16.0% for PF. Errors due to "anatomical variations" for head and neck were up to 9.0% for SD and DC and 8.0% for PF systems, while for abdomen and pelvis/prostate treatments were up to 9%, 17.0%, and 9.0% for SD, DC, and PF, respectively. The comparison among techniques gave 3% for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, 7.0% (range 4.7-8.9%) for VMAT, 10.4% (range 7.0-12.2%) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 13.2% (range 8.8-21.0%) for 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with different IVD software and among centers were consistent and showed an acceptable homogeneity. EPID IVD was effective in intercepting important errors.
Authors: A Piermattei; F Greco; M Grusio; S Menna; L Azario; G Stimato; E Placidi; S Teodoli; S Cilla; A Porcelli; L Alberico; A Fidanzio Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Maria D Falco; Stefano Giancaterino; Andrea De Nicola; Nico Adorante; Ramon Gimenez De Lorenzo; Monica Di Tommaso; Annamaria Vinciguerra; Marianna Trignani; Francesca Perrotti; Albina Allajbej; Andrea Fidanzio; Francesca Greco; Mattia Grusio; Domenico Genovesi; Angelo Piermattei Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01
Authors: Hualin Zhang; Eric D Donnelly; Jonathan B Strauss; Zhuang Kang; Mahesh Gopalakrishnan; Plato C Lee; Gocha Khelashvili; Chithra K Nair; Brian H Lee; Vythialingam Sathiaseelan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 2.102
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
Authors: A Gnerucci; M Esposito; A Ghirelli; S Pini; L Paoletti; R Barca; S Fondelli; P Alpi; B Grilli; F Rossi; S Scoccianti; S Russo Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.033