BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate analysis criteria for the identification of the presence of rectal gas during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer patients by using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (IVD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All measurements were performed by determining the cumulative EPID images in an integrated acquisition mode and analyzed using PerFRACTION commercial software. Systematic setup errors were simulated by moving the anthropomorphic phantom in each translational and rotational direction. The inhomogeneity regions were also simulated by the I'mRT phantom attached to the Quasar phantom. The presence of small and large air cavities (12 and 48 cm3) was controlled by moving the Quasar phantom in several timings during VMAT. Sixteen prostate cancer patients received EPID-based IVD during VMAT. RESULTS: In the phantom study, no systematic setup error was detected in the range that can happen in clinical (< 5-mm and < 3 degree). The pass rate of 2% dose difference (DD2%) in small and large air cavities was 98.74% and 79.05%, respectively, in the appearance of the air cavity after irradiation three quarter times. In the clinical study, some fractions caused a sharp decline in the DD2% pass rate. The proportion for DD2% < 90% was 13.4% of all fractions. Rectal gas was confirmed in 11.0% of fractions by acquiring kilo-voltage X-ray images after the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that analysis criteria of 2% dose difference in EPID-based IVD was a suitable method for identification of rectal gas during VMAT for prostate cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate analysis criteria for the identification of the presence of rectal gas during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer patients by using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (IVD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All measurements were performed by determining the cumulative EPID images in an integrated acquisition mode and analyzed using PerFRACTION commercial software. Systematic setup errors were simulated by moving the anthropomorphic phantom in each translational and rotational direction. The inhomogeneity regions were also simulated by the I'mRT phantom attached to the Quasar phantom. The presence of small and large air cavities (12 and 48 cm3) was controlled by moving the Quasar phantom in several timings during VMAT. Sixteen prostate cancer patients received EPID-based IVD during VMAT. RESULTS: In the phantom study, no systematic setup error was detected in the range that can happen in clinical (< 5-mm and < 3 degree). The pass rate of 2% dose difference (DD2%) in small and large air cavities was 98.74% and 79.05%, respectively, in the appearance of the air cavity after irradiation three quarter times. In the clinical study, some fractions caused a sharp decline in the DD2% pass rate. The proportion for DD2% < 90% was 13.4% of all fractions. Rectal gas was confirmed in 11.0% of fractions by acquiring kilo-voltage X-ray images after the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that analysis criteria of 2% dose difference in EPID-based IVD was a suitable method for identification of rectal gas during VMAT for prostate cancer patients.
Authors: Alan M Nichol; Kristy K Brock; Gina A Lockwood; Douglas J Moseley; Tara Rosewall; Padraig R Warde; Charles N Catton; David A Jaffray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tezontl Rosario; Lineke van der Weide; Marjan Admiraal; Maartje Piet; Ben Slotman; Johan Cuijpers Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245