한국의학물리학회지:의학물리 (Progress in Medical Physics)

  • 제30권4호
  • /
  • Pages.120-127
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2508-4445(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-4453(eISSN)
한국의학물리학회 (Korean Society of Medical Physics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Feasibility Study of Mobius3D for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

  • Lee, Chang Yeol (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Woo Chul (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hun Jeong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jeongshim (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine) ;
  • Huh, Hyun Do (Department of Radiation Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2019.11.15
  • 심사 : 2019.11.27
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of Mobius3D by comparison with an aSi-based electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and Octavius 4D, which are conventionally used for patient-specific prescription dose verification. Methods: The study was conducted using nine patients who were treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy. To evaluate the feasibility of Mobius3D for prescription dose verification, we compared the QA results of Mobius3D to an aSi-based EPID and the Octavius 4D dose verification methods. The first was the comparison of the Mobius3D verification phantom dose, and the second was to gamma index analysis. Results: The percentage differences between the calculated point dose and measurements from a PTW31010 ion chamber were 1.6%±1.3%, 2.0%±0.8%, and 1.2%±1.2%, using collapsed cone convolution, an analytical anisotropic algorithm, and the AcurosXB algorithm respectively. The average difference was found to be 1.6%±0.3%. Additionally, in the case of using the PTW31014 ion chamber, the corresponding results were 2.0%±1.4%, 2.4%±2.1%, and 1.6%±2.5%, showing an average agreement within 2.0%±0.3%. Considering all the criteria, the Mobius3D result showed that the percentage dose difference from the EPID was within 0.46%±0.34% on average, and the percentage dose difference from Octavius 4D was within 3.14%±2.85% on average. Conclusions: We conclude that Mobius3D can be used interchangeably with phantom-based dosimetry systems, which are commonly used as patient-specific prescription dose verification tools, especially under the conditions of 3%/3 mm and 95% pass rate.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Wiggenraad RG, Petoukhova AL, Versluis L, van Santvoort JP. Stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors: a comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and dynamic conformal arc. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:1018-1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.09.057
  2. Wolden SL, Chen WC, Pfister DG, Kraus DH, Berry SL, Zelefsky MJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharynx cancer: update of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:57-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.057
  3. Park HJ, Griffin RJ, Hui S, Levitt SH, Song CW. Radiationinduced vascular damage in tumors: implications of vascular damage in ablative hypofractionated radiotherapy (SBRT and SRS). Radiat Res. 2012;177:311-327. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2773.1
  4. Letourneau D, Publicover J, Kozelka J, Moseley DJ, Jaffray DA. Novel dosimetric phantom for quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2009;36:1813-1821. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3117563
  5. 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;36:5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  6. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011;38:1313-1338. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3514120
  7. Dobler B, Streck N, Klein E, Loeschel R, Haertl P, Koelbl O. Hybrid plan verification for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the 2D ionization chamber array I'mRT MatriXX--a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:N39-N55. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/2/N02
  8. Mans A, Remeijer P, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Wendling M, Sonke JJ, Mijnheer B, et al. 3D Dosimetric verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy by portal dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94:181-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.020
  9. Ceberg S, Gagne I, Gustafsson H, Scherman JB, Korreman SS, Kjaer-Kristoffersen F, et al. RapidArc treatment verification in 3D using polymer gel dosimetry and Monte Carlo simulation. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:4885-4898. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/17/001
  10. Hartmann B, Martisikova M, Jakel O. Homogeneity of Gafchromic EBT2 film. Med Phys. 2010;37:1753-1756. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3368601
  11. Childress N, Stevens E, Eklund D, Zhang M. Mobius3D white paper: dose calculation algorithm. Houston, TX: Mobius Medical Systems LP; 2012.
  12. Qian J, Lee L, Liu W, Chu K, Mok E, Luxton G, et al. Dose reconstruction for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using cone-beam CT and dynamic log files. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:3597-3610. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/13/002
  13. Nelson CL, Mason BE, Robinson RC, Kisling KD, Kirsner SM. Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4838.
  14. Fontenot JD. Evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4990.
  15. Clemente-Gutierrez F, Perez-Vara C. Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:5190.
  16. McDonald DG, Jacqmin DJ, Mart CJ, Koch NC, Peng JL, Ashenafi MS, et al. Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:170-177.
  17. Reynolds RR, Pompos A, Gu X, Jiang SB, Stojadinovic S. Initial experience with VMAT plan and Delivery verification using a DICOM-RT framework and Linac Delivery log files. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2014;90(1 Suppl):S886-S887.
  18. Smith JC, Dieterich S, Orton CG. Point/counterpoint. It is still necessary to validate each individual IMRT treatment plan with dosimetric measurements before delivery. Med Phys. 2011;38:553-555. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3512801