Literature DB >> 33596336

Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

Melissa Ghafarian1,2, Michael Price1,2, Manuel Morales-Paliza1,2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose-volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (RIQM  = 0.99; REPID  = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EPID; IQM; pretreatment VMAT QA

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33596336      PMCID: PMC7984480          DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


  18 in total

1.  Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system.

Authors:  C Clifton Ling; Pengpeng Zhang; Yves Archambault; Jiri Bocanek; Grace Tang; Thomas Losasso
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Dosimetric verification of IMAT delivery with a conventional EPID system and a commercial portal dose image prediction tool.

Authors:  Mauro Iori; Elisabetta Cagni; Marta Paiusco; Peter Munro; Alan E Nahum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.

Authors:  Benjamin E Nelms; Heming Zhen; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

Authors:  D A Low; W B Harms; S Mutic; J A Purdy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Sensitivity of the IQM transmission detector to errors of VMAT plans.

Authors:  Gary Razinskas; Sonja Wegener; Johannes Greber; Otto A Sauer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Error detection capability of a novel transmission detector: a validation study for online VMAT monitoring.

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Kilian Michel; Livia Marrazzo; Michael Obenland; Stefania Pallotta; Mari Björnsgard; Johannes Lutterbach
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy.

Authors:  C X Yu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  EPID-based dosimetry to verify IMRT planar dose distribution for the aS1200 EPID and FFF beams.

Authors:  Narges Miri; Peter Keller; Benjamin J Zwan; Peter Greer
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance.

Authors:  Masahide Saito; Naoki Sano; Yuki Shibata; Kengo Kuriyama; Takafumi Komiyama; Kan Marino; Shinichi Aoki; Kazunari Ashizawa; Kazuya Yoshizawa; Hiroshi Onishi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Characterization and evaluation of an integrated quality monitoring system for online quality assurance of external beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  David Hoffman; Eunah Chung; Clayton Hess; Robin Stern; Stanley Benedict
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  1 in total

1.  Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Authors:  Alison Gray; Omemh Bawazeer; Sankar Arumugam; Philip Vial; Joseph Descallar; David Thwaites; Lois Holloway
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-09-30
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.