Charles K Matrosic1, Wesley Culberson2, Andrew Shepard2, Sydney Jupitz2, Bryan Bednarz2. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States. Electronic address: matrosic@med.umich.edu. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically benchmark gel dosimetry measurements in a dynamically deformable abdominal phantom for intrafraction image guidance through a multi-dosimeter comparison. Once benchmarked, the study aimed to perform a proof-of-principle study for validation measurements of an ultrasound image-guided radiotherapy delivery system. METHODS: The phantom was dosimetrically benchmarked by delivering a liver VMAT plan and measuring the 3D dose distribution with DEFGEL dosimeters. Measured doses were compared to the treatment planning system and measurements acquired with radiochromic film and an ion chamber. The ultrasound image guidance validation was performed for a hands-free ultrasound transducer for the tracking of liver motion during treatment. RESULTS: Gel dosimeters were compared to the TPS and film measurements, showing good qualitative dose distribution matches, low γ values through most of the high dose region, and average 3%/5 mm γ-analysis pass rates of 99.2%(0.8%) and 90.1%(0.8%), respectively. Gel dosimeter measurements matched ion chamber measurements within 3%. The image guidance validation study showed the measurement of the treatment delivery improvements due to the inclusion of the ultrasound image guidance system. Good qualitative matching of dose distributions and improvements of the γ-analysis results were observed for the ultrasound-gated dosimeter compared to the ungated dosimeter. CONCLUSIONS: DEFGEL dosimeters in phantom showed good agreement with the planned dose and other dosimeters for dosimetric benchmarking. Ultrasound image guidance validation measurements showed good proof-of-principle of the utility of the phantom system as a method of validating ultrasound-based image guidance systems and potentially other image guidance methods.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically benchmark gel dosimetry measurements in a dynamically deformable abdominal phantom for intrafraction image guidance through a multi-dosimeter comparison. Once benchmarked, the study aimed to perform a proof-of-principle study for validation measurements of an ultrasound image-guided radiotherapy delivery system. METHODS: The phantom was dosimetrically benchmarked by delivering a liver VMAT plan and measuring the 3D dose distribution with DEFGEL dosimeters. Measured doses were compared to the treatment planning system and measurements acquired with radiochromic film and an ion chamber. The ultrasound image guidance validation was performed for a hands-free ultrasound transducer for the tracking of liver motion during treatment. RESULTS: Gel dosimeters were compared to the TPS and film measurements, showing good qualitative dose distribution matches, low γ values through most of the high dose region, and average 3%/5 mm γ-analysis pass rates of 99.2%(0.8%) and 90.1%(0.8%), respectively. Gel dosimeter measurements matched ion chamber measurements within 3%. The image guidance validation study showed the measurement of the treatment delivery improvements due to the inclusion of the ultrasound image guidance system. Good qualitative matching of dose distributions and improvements of the γ-analysis results were observed for the ultrasound-gated dosimeter compared to the ungated dosimeter. CONCLUSIONS: DEFGEL dosimeters in phantom showed good agreement with the planned dose and other dosimeters for dosimetric benchmarking. Ultrasound image guidance validation measurements showed good proof-of-principle of the utility of the phantom system as a method of validating ultrasound-based image guidance systems and potentially other image guidance methods.
Authors: J Hanley; M M Debois; D Mah; G S Mageras; A Raben; K Rosenzweig; B Mychalczak; L H Schwartz; P J Gloeggler; W Lutz; C C Ling; S A Leibel; Z Fuks; G J Kutcher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jenny Bertholet; Antje Knopf; Björn Eiben; Jamie McClelland; Alexander Grimwood; Emma Harris; Martin Menten; Per Poulsen; Doan Trang Nguyen; Paul Keall; Uwe Oelfke Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.609