Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Gamma Evaluation with Portal Dosimetry for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Chang Heon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, So-Yeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • An, HyunJoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Wu, Hong-Gyun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.06.30
  • Accepted : 2017.07.10
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of portal dosimetry in comparison with the MapCHECK2 measurments. In this study, a total of 65 treatment plans including both volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively selected and analyzed (45 VMAT plans and 20 IMRT plans). A total of 4 types of linac models (VitalBeam, Trilogy, Clinac 21EXS, and Clianc iX) were used for the comparison between portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements. The VMAT plans were delivered with two VitalBeam linacs (VitalBeam1 and VitalBeam2) and one Trilogy while the IMRT plans were delivered with one Clinac 21EXS and one Clinacl iX. The global gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for IMRT while those were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 2%/2 mm for VMAT. Spearman's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. For VMAT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with the VitalBeam1, VitalBeam2, and Trilogy were $97.3%{\pm}3.5%$, $97.1%{\pm}3.4%$, and $97.5%{\pm}1.9%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.8%{\pm}2.5%$, $96.3%{\pm}2.7%$, and $97.4%{\pm}1.3%$, respectively. For IMRT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with Clinac 21EXS and Clinac iX were $99.7%{\pm}0.3%$ and $99.8%{\pm}0.2%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.5%{\pm}3.3%$ and $97.7%{\pm}3.2%$, respectively. Except for the result with the Trilogy, no correlations were observed between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. Therefore, both the MapCHECK2 measurements and portal dosimetry can be used as an alternative to each other for patient-specific QA for both IMRT and VMAT.

Keywords

References

  1. Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, Jackson A, Zelefsky M, Mageras G. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(5):1456-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.033
  2. Studenski MT, Bar-Ad V, Siglin J, Cognetti D, Curry J, Tuluc M, et al. Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. Med Dosim. 2013;38(2):171-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2012.10.009
  3. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5359-73. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  4. Brahme A. Opt imizat ion of stat ionary and moving beam radiation therapy techniques. Radiother Oncol. 1988;12(2):129-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(88)90167-3
  5. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):310-7. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738
  6. Kang JK, Kim MS, Jang WI, Seo YS, Kim HJ, Cho CK, et al. The clinical utilization of radiation therapy in Korea between 2009 and 2013. Radiat Oncol J. 2016;34(2):88-95. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2016.01753
  7. Park JM, Park SY, Kim H. Modulation index for VMAT considering both mechanical and dose calculat ion uncertainties. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(18):7101-25. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/18/7101
  8. Park SY, Kim IH, Ye SJ, Carlson J, Park JM. Texture analysis on the fluence map to evaluate the degree of modulation for volumet ric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2014;41(11):111718. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4897388
  9. Fredh A, Scherman JB, Fog LS, Munck af Rosenschold P. Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031716. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4788645
  10. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W. On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031702. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4789580
  11. Kim JI, Park SY, Kim HJ, Kim JH, Ye SJ, Park JM. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-167
  12. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25(5):656-61. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  13. Fogliata A, Clivio A, Fenoglietto P, Hrbacek J, Kloeck S, Lattuada P, et al. Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1002):534-45. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/72327299
  14. Sharma DS, Mhatre V, Heigrujam M, Talapatra K, Mallik S. Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11(4):3268.
  15. Martinez Ortega J, Gomez Gonzalez N, Castro Tejero P, Pinto Monedero M, Tolani NB, Nunez Martin L, et al. A portal dosimetry dose prediction method based on collapsed cone algorithm using the clinical beam model. Med Phys. 2017;44(1):333-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12018
  16. Yoon J, Jung JW, Kim JO, Yeo I. A Monte Carlo calculation model of electronic portal imaging device for transit dosimetry through heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2242. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4945276
  17. Mi l l in AE, Windle RS, Lewis DG. A comparison of electronic portal dosimetry verification methods for use in stereotactic radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2016;32(1):188-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.12.001
  18. Spreeuw H, Rozendaal R, Camargo P, Mans A, Wendling M, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, et al. Portal dosimetry in wedged beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(3):5375.

Cited by

  1. Validation of new transmission detector transmission factors for online dosimetry: an experimental study vol.13, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1106-y
  2. Verification of Extended Source-To-Imager Distance (SID) Correction for Portal Dosimetry vol.29, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.137