Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

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

DOI QR Code

A Comparison between Portal Dosimetry and Mobius3D Results for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy

  • Kim, Sung Yeop (Department of Physics, Yeungnam University) ;
  • Park, Jaehyeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center) ;
  • Park, Jae Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center) ;
  • Yea, Ji Woon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center) ;
  • Oh, Se An (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center)
  • Received : 2021.09.13
  • Accepted : 2021.12.07
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical quality assurance results of portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device, a method that is extensively used for patient-specific quality assurance, and the newly released Mobius3D for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: This retrospective study includes data from 122 patients who underwent IMRT and VMAT on the Novalis Tx and VitalBeam linear accelerators between April and June 2020. We used a paired t-test to compare portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device and the average gamma passing rates of MobiusFX using log files regenerated after patient treatment. Results: The average gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm) were 99.43%±1.02% and 99.32%±1.87% in VitalBeam and 97.53%±3.34% and 96.45%±13.94% in Novalis Tx, respectively. Comparison of the gamma passing rate results of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm as per the manufacturer's manual) does not show any statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Log file-based patient-specific quality assurance, including independent dose calculation, can be appropriately used in clinical practice as a second-check dosimetry, and it is considered comparable with primary quality assurance such as portal dosimetry.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1G1A1003209).

References

  1. Oh SA, Yea JW, Park JW, Park J. Use of a head-tilting baseplate during volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to better protect organs at risk in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT). PLoS One. 2020;15:e0232430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232430
  2. Oh SA, Kang MK, Kim SK, Yea JW. Comparison of IMRT and VMAT techniques in spine stereotactic radiosurgery with International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium consensus guidelines. Prog Med Phys. 2013;24:145-153. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.3.145
  3. Lee HH, Chen CH, Luo KH, Chuang HY, Huang CJ, Cheng YK, et al. Five-year survival outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) using forward IMRT or Tomotherapy for breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10:4342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61403-6
  4. Liu X, Huang E, Wang Y, He Y, Luo H, Zhong M, et al. Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy, VMAT, fixed-field IMRT and 3D-conformal radiotherapy for stage I-II nasal natural killer T-cell lymphoma. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0812-1
  5. Dapper H, Rodriguez I, Munch S, Peeken JC, Borm K, Combs SE, et al. Impact of VMAT-IMRT compared to 3D conformal radiotherapy on anal sphincter dose distribution in neoadjuvant chemoradiation of rectal cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1187-7
  6. Chao PJ, Lee HF, Lan JH, Guo SS, Ting HM, Huang YJ, et al. Propensity-score-matched evaluation of the incidence of radiation pneumonitis and secondary cancer risk for breast cancer patients treated with IMRT/VMAT. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14145-x
  7. Huh SJ, Park W, Choi DH. Recent trends in intensity-modulated radiation therapy use in Korea. Radiat Oncol J. 2019;37:249-253. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2019.00577
  8. Shumway DA, Griffith KA, Pierce LJ, Feng M, Moran JM, Stenmark MH, et al. Wide variation in the diffusion of a new technology: practice-based trends in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use in the state of Michigan, with implications for IMRT use nationally. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:e373-e379.
  9. Das IJ, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, Ahnesjo A, Gibbons J, Li XA, et al. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys. 2008;35:4186-4215. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2969070
  10. 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
  11. Yan G, Fox C, Liu C, Li JG. The extraction of true profiles for TPS commissioning and its impact on IMRT patient-specific QA. Med Phys. 2008;35:3661-3670. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2952643
  12. Saw CB, Ayyangar KM, Zhen W, Thompson RB, Enke CA. Commissioning and quality assurance for MLC-based IMRT. Med Dosim. 2001;26:125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-3947(01)00066-8
  13. Fontenot JD. Evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4990.
  14. Nakamura S, Okamoto H, Wakita A, Umezawa R, Takahashi K, Inaba K, et al. A management method for the statistical results of patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Radiat Res. 2017;58:572-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrw107
  15. Oh SA, Yea JW, Lee R, Park HB, Kim SK. Dosimetric verifications of the output factors in the small field less than 3cm2 using the Gafchromic EBT2 films and the various detectors. Prog Med Phys. 2014;25:218-224. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2014.25.4.218
  16. Pulliam KB, Followill D, Court L, Dong L, Gillin M, Prado K, et al. A six-year review of more than 13,000 patient-specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4935.
  17. Marrazzo L, Zani M, Pallotta S, Arilli C, Casati M, Compagnucci A, et al. GafChromic® EBT3 films for patient specific IMRT QA using a multichannel approach. Phys Med. 2015; 31:1035-1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.010
  18. Fiandra C, Fusella M, Giglioli FR, Filippi AR, Mantovani C, Ricardi U, et al. Comparison of Gafchromic EBT2 and EBT3 for patient-specific quality assurance: cranial stereotactic radiosurgery using volumetric modulated arc therapy with multiple noncoplanar arcs. Med Phys. 2013;40:082105. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4816300
  19. Yea JW, Park JW, Kim SK, Kim DY, Kim JG, Seo CY, et al. Feasibility of a 3D-printed anthropomorphic patient-specific head phantom for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181560
  20. Howell RM, Smith IPN, Jarrio CS. Establishing action levels for EPID-based QA for IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008;9:16-25. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2721
  21. 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
  22. Kadoya N, Kon Y, Takayama Y, Matsumoto T, Hayashi N, Katsuta Y, et al. Quantifying the performance of two different types of commercial software programs for 3D patient dose reconstruction for prostate cancer patients: machine log files vs. machine log files with EPID images. Phys Med. 2018;45:170-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.018
  23. Jung JY, Shin YJ, Sohn SC, Min JW, Kim YL, Kim DS, et al. Quantitative evaluation of patient-specific quality assurance using online dosimetry system. J Korean Phys Soc. 2018;72:312-319. https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.72.312
  24. Lee CY, Kim WC, Kim HJ, Lee J, Huh HD. Feasibility study of Mobius3D for patient-specific quality assurance in the volumetric modulated arc therapy. Prog Med Phys. 2019;30:120-127. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2019.30.4.120
  25. 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.
  26. Kodama T, Saito Y, Hatanaka S, Hariu M, Shimbo M, Takahashi T. Commissioning of the Mobius3D independent dose verification system for TomoTherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20:12-20.
  27. Kim JI, Choi CH, Park SY, An H, Wu HG, Park JM. Gamma evaluation with portal dosimetry for volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Prog Med Phys. 2017;28:61-66. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2017.28.2.61
  28. Kim YL, Chung JB, Kim JS, Lee JW, Choi KS. Comparison of the performance between portal dosimetry and a commercial two-dimensional array system on pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Korean Phys Soc. 2014;64:1207-1212. https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.64.1207
  29. Narayanasamy G, Zalman T, Ha CS, Papanikolaou N, Stathakis S. Evaluation of Dosimetry Check software for IMRT patient-specific quality assurance. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:5427.