DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of 3DVH Software for the Patient Dose Analysis in TomoTherapy

토모테라피 환자 치료 선량 분석을 위한 3DVH 프로그램 평가

  • Song, Ju-Young (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Hyeob (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital) ;
  • Jeong, Jae-Uk (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital) ;
  • Yoon, Mee Sun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School) ;
  • Ahn, Sung-Ja (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School) ;
  • Chung, Woong-Ki (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School) ;
  • Nam, Taek-Keun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School)
  • 송주영 (전남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 김용협 (화순전남대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 정재욱 (화순전남대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 윤미선 (전남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 안성자 (전남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 정웅기 (전남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 남택근 (전남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실)
  • Received : 2015.12.01
  • Accepted : 2015.12.18
  • Published : 2015.12.31

Abstract

The new function of 3DVH software for dose calculation inside the patient undergoing TomoTherapy treatment by applying the measured data obtained by ArcCHECK was recently released. In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of 3DVH for the TomoTherapy DQA process was evaluated by the comparison of measured dose distribution with the dose calculated using 3DVH. The 2D diode detector array MapCHECK phantom was used for the TomoTherapy planning of virtual patient and for the measurement of the compared dose. The average pass rate of gamma evaluation between the measured dose in the MapCHECK phantom and the recalculated dose in 3DVH was $92.6{\pm}3.5%$, and the error was greater than the average pass rate, $99.0{\pm}1.2%$, in the gamma evaluation results with the dose calculated in TomoTherapy planning system. The error was also greater than that in the gamma evaluation results in the RapidArc analysis, which showed the average pass rate of $99.3{\pm}0.9%$. The evaluated accuracy of 3DVH software for TomoTherapy DQA process in this study seemed to have some uncertainty for the clinical use. It is recommended to perform a proper analysis before using the 3DVH software for dose recalculation of the patient in the TomoTherapy DQA process considering the initial application stage in clinical use.

세기조절방사선치료의 선량정확도에 대한 품질보증 과정에서 측정된 데이터를 기반으로 실제 치료 환자 신체 내의 치료 선량분포를 재계산하여 치료계획 시 계산된 선량분포와 비교, 분석을 수행할 수 있는 프로그램들이 개발되어 임상에 사용 중에 있다. 본 연구에서는 아크첵(ArcCHECK)을 사용하여 품질보증 과정에서 측정한 토모테라피 선량 데이터를 기반으로 환자 내 치료선량 분포를 재구성할 수 있는 3DVH 프로그램의 새로운 기능 및 선량정확도를 평가하고자 하였다. 이를 위한 가상의 환자로 이차원 다이오드 검출기 배열 장치인 MapCHECK 영상을 사용하여 토모테라피 치료계획을 수립하고, 아크첵으로 선량을 측정 후 다시 3DVH를 사용하여 MapCHECK 검출기 영역의 선량분포를 재계산한 후, 실제 MapCHECK에서 측정된 선량분포와 비교하여, 그 오차를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 측정값과 3DVH 계산값 비교를 위한 감마평가에서 평균 합격률은 $92.6{\pm}3.5%$로 측정값과 토모치료계획에서 계산된 선량과의 감마평가 평균 합격률 $99.0{\pm}1.2%$보다 오차가 큼을 보였다. 래피드아크에서 비교한 3DVH 계산값과 측정값의 감마평가 평균 합격률 $99.3{\pm}0.9%$와 비교하였을 경우에도 더 큰 오차를 보여, 토모테라피에서 3DVH 선량 계산 기능을 임상에서 신뢰하고 사용하기에는 더 많은 측정 결과들의 분석과 오차 원인에 대한 분석이 수행되어야 할 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al: Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys 30(8):2089-115 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1591194
  2. Palta JR, Liu C, Li JG: Quality assurance of Intensitymodulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71(1 Suppl):S108-12 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.092
  3. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al: IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 36(11): 5359-73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  4. Korevaar EW, Wauben DJ, Langendijk JA, et al: Clinical introduction of linac head-mounted 2D detector array based quality assurance system in head and neck IMRT. Radiother Oncol 100(3):446-52 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.09.007
  5. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA: Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys 38(2):1037-44 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657
  6. Van Elmpt W, Nijsten S, Mijnheer B, et al: The next step in patient-specific QA: 3D dose verification of conformal and intensity-modulated RT based on EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo dose calculations. Radiother Oncol 86(1):86-92 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.007
  7. Olch AJ: Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA. Med Phys 39(1):81-6 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3666771
  8. Nelms BE, Opp D, Robinson J, et al: VMAT QA: measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. Med Phys 39(7):4228-38 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4729709
  9. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Latorre A, et al: 3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. Med Phys 39(8):5040-9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4736949
  10. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, et al: Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys 39(12):7626-34 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4767763
  11. Nakaguchi Y, Araki F, Maruyama M, et al: Dose verification of IMRT by use of a COMPASS transmission detector. Radiol Phys Technol 5(1):63-70 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-011-0137-y
  12. Visser R, Wauben DJ, De Groot M, et al: Efficient and reliable 3D dose quality assurance for IMRT by combining independent dose calculations with measurements. Med Phys 40(2):021710-1-6 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4774048
  13. Opp D, Nelms BE, Zhang G, et al: Validation of measurement-guided 3D VMAT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14(1):70-84 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4154

Cited by

  1. Dosimetric characteristics of a reusable 3D radiochromic dosimetry material vol.12, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180970
  2. Patient QA System Using Delta4 Phantom for Tomotherapy: A Comparative Study with EBT3 Film vol.74, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.74.816