Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of the Utility of a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Specific Patient Quality Assurance using Software-based Quality Assurance System

소프트웨어 기반 정도관리 시스템을 이용한 부피세기조절회전치료 환자 별 정도관리의 유용성 평가

  • Kang, Dong-Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Jae-Yong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital) ;
  • Shin, Young-Joo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital) ;
  • Min, Jung-Whan (The Shingu University College of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Yon-Lae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Choonhae College of Health Sciences) ;
  • Kwon, Kyung-Tae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Dongnam Health University)
  • 강동진 (인제대학교 상계백병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 정재용 (인제대학교 상계백병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 신영주 (인제대학교 상계백병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 민정환 (신구대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 김연래 (춘해보건대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 권경태 (동남보건대학교 방사선과)
  • Received : 2018.01.20
  • Accepted : 2018.02.21
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of a software-based quality assurance system based on Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy treatment plan. Evaluate treatment plan through the D VH analysis, PTV mean dose ($D_{mean}$) and PTV 95% dose($D_{95}$) compare the MFX based on original treatment plan, Average error rate was $0.9{\pm}0.6%$, $1.0{\pm}0.8%$, respectively. Measuring point dose using phantom and ion chamber, the average error rate between the ionization chamber and MFX was $0.9{\pm}0.7%$, $1.1{\pm}0.7%$ (high dose region), $1.1{\pm}0.9%$, $1.2{\pm}0.7%$ (low dose region). The average gamma though of MFX and $Delta^{4PT}$ is $98.7{\pm}1.2%$, $98.4{\pm}.3%$, respectively. Through this study, A software based QA system that simplifies hardware based QA procedures that involve a lot of time and effort. It can be used as a simple and useful tool in clinical practice.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee L, Le QT, Xing L, RETROSPECTIVE IMRT DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON CONE-BEAM CT AND MLC LOG-FILE, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 70(2), pp.634-644, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.09.054
  2. Han YY, Review on the Pre-treatment Quality assurance for intensity modulated radiation therapy, Progress in MEDICAL PHYSICS, 24(4), pp.213-219, 2013. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.4.213
  3. So-Yeon P, Yang-Kyun P, Jongmin P, et al., MU fluence reconstruction based-on delivered leaf position for IMRT quality assurance, JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, 38(1), pp.28-34, 2011.
  4. Maria N, Antoniette V, Mary K, et al., Calibration and quality assurance for rounded leaf-end MLC systems, Med Phys, 28(11), pp.2227-2223, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1413517
  5. Nelms B.E, Zhen H, Tome W.A, Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not clinically relevant patient dose error, Med Phys, 38(2), pp.1037-1044, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657
  6. Qian J, Lee L, Liu W, et al., Dose reconstruction for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using cone-beam CT and dynamic log files, Phys Med Biol, 55( 13), pp.3597-3610, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/13/002
  7. Markus A, Sara B, Carios De W, et al., Guidelines for the verification of IMRT, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2008.
  8. Mobius 3D USER GUIDE: MOBIUS MEDICAL SYSTEM, 2015.
  9. Gary A, Jay W, Nesrin D, et al., IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119, 2009.
  10. Nelson C. L, Mason B. E, Robinson R. et al., Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system, JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL PHYSICS, 15(5), pp.57-65, 2014.
  11. Klein E, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al., Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators, Med. Phys, 36(9), pp.4197-4212, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392
  12. Dahl P, Yong Ho K, Won Taek K, et al., A Method to calculate a pass rate of the $\gamma$-index Analysis in Tomotherapy Delivery Quality Assurance, Progress in MEDICAL PHYSICS, 21(4), pp.340-347, 2010.
  13. Olasolo-Alonso J, Vazquez-Galinanes A, Pellejero-Pellejero S, et al., Evaluation of MLC performance in VMAT and dynamic IMRT by log file analysis, Phys Med, Vol. 33, pp.87-94, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.12.013
  14. Prabaker S, Sriram P, Prakash J, et al.,A study on dosimetric properties of electronic portal imaging device and its use as a quality assurance tool in volumetric modulated arc therapy, Rep Prack Oncol Radiother, 16(6), pp.248-255, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2011.08.001
  15. Krzysztof S, Marta S, Barbara B, et al., EPID in vivo dosimetry in RapidArc technique, Rep Prack Oncol Radiother, 15(1), pp.8-14, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2010.01.003
  16. Dewayne L, Sotirios S, Joseph E, et al., Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods, J Appl Clin Med Phys, 18(4), pp.172-179, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12114
  17. Dharanipahy R, Mingyao Z, Deshan Y, et al., Catching errors with patient-specific pretreatment machine log file analysis, Practical Radiation Oncology, 3(2), pp.80-90, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2012.05.002
  18. Mobius3D Software based IMRT QA, MOBIUS MEDICAL SYSTEM, 2015.