Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional dose reconstruction-based pretreatment dosimetric verification in volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

  • Jeong, Yuri (Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Oh, Jeong Geun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Jeong Ku (Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Sun Rock (Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kang Kyoo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2020.02.03
  • Accepted : 2020.03.10
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: We performed three-dimensional (3D) dose reconstruction-based pretreatment verification to evaluate gamma analysis acceptance criteria in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment verification for 28 VMAT plans for prostate cancer was performed using the COMPASS system with a dolphin detector. The 3D reconstructed dose distribution of the treatment planning system calculation (TC) was compared with that of COMPASS independent calculation (CC) and COMPASS reconstruction from the dolphin detector measurement (CR). Gamma results (gamma failure rate and average gamma value [GFR and γAvg]) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) deviations, 98%, 2% and mean dose-volume difference (DD98%, DD2% and DDmean), were evaluated. Gamma analyses were performed with two acceptance criteria, 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm. Results: The GFR in 2%/2 mm criteria were less than 8%, and those in 3%/3 mm criteria were less than 1% for all structures in comparisons between TC, CC, and CR. In the comparison between TC and CR, GFR and γAvg in 2%/2 mm criteria were significantly higher than those in 3%/3 mm criteria. The DVH deviations were within 2%, except for DDmean (%) for rectum and bladder. Conclusions: The 3%/3 mm criteria were not strict enough to identify any discrepancies between planned and measured doses, and DVH deviations were less than 2% in most parameters. Therefore, gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and DVH related parameters could be a useful tool for pretreatment verification for VMAT in prostate cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Freedland SJ. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Summary. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:618-24. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00434
  2. Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1517-24. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.1217
  3. Khan FM, Gibbons JP. Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.
  4. Hatano K, Tohyama N, Kodama T, Okabe N, Sakai M, Konoeda K. Current status of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: History, clinical results and future directions. Int J Urol 2019;26:775-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14011
  5. Cho B. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a review with a physics perspective. Radiat Oncol J 2018;36:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2018.00122
  6. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998;25:656-61. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  7. Muzik J, Soukup M, Alber M. Comparison of fixed-beam IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and IMPT for selected cases. Med Phys 2008;35:1580-92. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2890085
  8. 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 2009;36:5359-73. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  9. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys 2011;38:1313-38. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3514120
  10. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys 2018;45:e53-e83. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810
  11. Alber M, Mijnheer B, Georg D, et al. Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. Brussels, Belgium: European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology; 2008.
  12. Vangvichith M, Autret D, Tiplica T, Barreau M, Dufreneix S. Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment. Phys Med 2019;61:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.04.014
  13. Chopra KL, Leo P, Kabat C, et al. Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems in the presence of tissue heterogeneities. Ther Radiol Oncol 2018;2:420-7.
  14. Kathirvel M, Subramanian S, Clivio A, et al. Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans. Radiat Oncol 2013;8:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-140
  15. Kim JI, Choi CH, Wu HG, Kim JH, Kim K, Park JM. Correlation analysis between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations for both intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Oncotarget 2017;8:5449-59. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.12279
  16. Vieillevigne L, Molinier J, Brun T, Ferrand R. Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors. Phys Med 2015;31:720-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.05.016
  17. Sdrolia A, Brownsword KM, Marsden JE, Alty KT, Moore CS, Beavis AW. Retrospective review of locally set tolerances for VMAT prostate patient specific QA using the COMPASS system. Phys Med 2015;31:792-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.03.017
  18. Cozzolino M, Oliviero C, Califano G, et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance (QA) for prostate RapidArc plans: gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation. Phys Med 2014;30:462-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.003
  19. Jin X, Yan H, Han C, Zhou Y, Yi J, Xie C. Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification. Br J Radiol 2015; 88:20140577. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140577
  20. Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY, Oh DH, Kim ST. Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiat Oncol 2018; 13:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x
  21. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys 2011; 38:1037-44. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657
  22. Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys 2011; 38:5477-89. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3633904
  23. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, Sapino V, Gabriele P. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys 2012; 39:7626-34. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4767763
  24. Sun WZ, Zhang DD, Peng YL, et al. Retrospective dosimetry study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: measurement-guided dose reconstruction and analysis. Radiat Oncol 2018; 13:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-0993-2
  25. Hussein M, Clark CH, Nisbet A. Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy: towards good practice. Phys Med 2017; 36:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.001

Cited by

  1. Comparison of three-dimensional patient-specific dosimetry systems with delivery errors: Toward a new synchronous measurement method vol.90, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.09.013