BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate the quality of error detectability with a three-dimensional verification system using isodose volumes as regions of interest (ROIs) in quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment plans with four types of intentional errors were created from the data of 20 patients with localized prostate cancer. These plans underwent QA using the three-dimensional verification system. The datasets of another 30 cases without inserted errors were assessed as controls. The ROIs used in the evaluations were those used in our conventional method (planning target volume, rectum, and bladder). The isodose volume method (5%, 50% and 95% isodose volume) and the error detection rates (measurement above the tolerance values, as set from the other 30 cases) were assessed and compared. RESULTS: There was significantly higher multileaf collimator systematic closed error detectability with the isodose volume method compared to the conventional method (A-side 0.2 mm: p=0.005, A-side 0.35 mm: p=0.002, B-side 0.2 mm: p=0.001 and B-side 0.35 mm: p=0.010). There were no error types for which the error detection rate of the isodose volume method was lower than that of the conventional method. CONCLUSION: The isodose volume method was able to evaluate the irradiated ROIs that could be delineated, and improved error detectability. This method has the potential to provide a wider margin of safety in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate the quality of error detectability with a three-dimensional verification system using isodose volumes as regions of interest (ROIs) in quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment plans with four types of intentional errors were created from the data of 20 patients with localized prostate cancer. These plans underwent QA using the three-dimensional verification system. The datasets of another 30 cases without inserted errors were assessed as controls. The ROIs used in the evaluations were those used in our conventional method (planning target volume, rectum, and bladder). The isodose volume method (5%, 50% and 95% isodose volume) and the error detection rates (measurement above the tolerance values, as set from the other 30 cases) were assessed and compared. RESULTS: There was significantly higher multileaf collimator systematic closed error detectability with the isodose volume method compared to the conventional method (A-side 0.2 mm: p=0.005, A-side 0.35 mm: p=0.002, B-side 0.2 mm: p=0.001 and B-side 0.35 mm: p=0.010). There were no error types for which the error detection rate of the isodose volume method was lower than that of the conventional method. CONCLUSION: The isodose volume method was able to evaluate the irradiated ROIs that could be delineated, and improved error detectability. This method has the potential to provide a wider margin of safety in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Authors: Alan Pollack; Alex Hanlon; Eric M Horwitz; Steven Feigenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Robert A Price Journal: World J Urol Date: 2003-09-05 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Lei Dong; John Antolak; Mohammad Salehpour; Kenneth Forster; Laura O'Neill; Robin Kendall; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038