한국의학물리학회지:의학물리 (Progress in Medical Physics)

  • 제32권4호
  • /
  • Pages.116-121
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2508-4445(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-4453(eISSN)
한국의학물리학회 (Korean Society of Medical Physics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating the Effects of Dose Rate on Dynamic Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance

  • Kim, Kwon Hee (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Biomedicine & Health Science, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Back, Tae Seong (Department of Radiation Oncology, National Health Insurance Service, Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Eun Ji (Department of Radiation Oncology, National Health Insurance Service, Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Suh, Tae Suk (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Biomedicine & Health Science, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Sung, Wonmo (Department of Biomedical Engineering and Biomedicine & Health Science, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.15
  • 심사 : 2021.11.24
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: To investigate the effects of dose rate on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). Methods: We performed gamma tests using portal dose image prediction and log files of a multileaf collimator. Thirty treatment plans were randomly selected for the IMRT QA plan, and three verification plans for each treatment plan were generated with different dose rates (200, 400, and 600 monitor units [MU]/min). These verification plans were delivered to an electronic portal imager attached to a Varian medical linear accelerator, which recorded and compared with the planned dose. Root-mean-square (RMS) error values of the log files were also compared. Results: With an increase in dose rate, the 2%/2-mm gamma passing rate decreased from 90.9% to 85.5%, indicating that a higher dose rate was associated with lower radiation delivery accuracy. Accordingly, the average RMS error value increased from 0.0170 to 0.0381 cm as dose rate increased. In contrast, the radiation delivery time reduced from 3.83 to 1.49 minutes as the dose rate increased from 200 to 600 MU/min. Conclusions: Our results indicated that radiation delivery accuracy was lower at higher dose rates; however, the accuracy was still clinically acceptable at dose rates of up to 600 MU/min.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF, No. 2021R1C1C1005930 and No. 2018R1A2B2005343) funded by the Korea government (MSIT).

참고문헌

  1. Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, Yeoh KW. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9:193-199. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.3635
  2. Baumann M, Ebert N, Kurth I, Bacchus C, Overgaard J. What will radiation oncology look like in 2050? A look at a changing professional landscape in Europe and beyond. Mol Oncol. 2020;14:1577-1585. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12731
  3. Webb S. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.
  4. Bortfeld T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R363-R379. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R21
  5. Ezzell GA, Chungbin S. The overshoot phenomenon in step-and-shoot IMRT delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2001;2:138-148. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v2i3.2607
  6. Yu CY, Wan SW, Weng YC, Hsu CH. Three corrections for overshoot effect improved the dose for step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0250243. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250243
  7. Li J, Wiersma RD, Stepaniak CJ, Farrey KJ, Al-Hallaq HA. Improvements in dose accuracy delivered with static-MLC IMRT on an integrated linear accelerator control system. Med Phys. 2012;39:2456-2462. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3701778
  8. Xia P, Chuang CF, Verhey LJ. Communication and sampling rate limitations in IMRT delivery with a dynamic multileaf collimator system. Med Phys. 2002;29:412-423. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1449496
  9. Langen KM, Willoughby TR, Meeks SL, Santhanam A, Cunningham A, Levine L, et al. Observations on real-time prostate gland motion using electromagnetic tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:1084-1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.054
  10. Njeh CF, Salmon HW, Schiller C. The impact of dose rate on the accuracy of step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance using varian 2300CD. J Med Phys. 2017;42:206-212. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_18_17
  11. Bresciani S, Poli M, Miranti A, Maggio A, Di Dia A, Bracco C, et al. Comparison of two different EPID-based solutions performing pretreatment quality assurance: 2D portal dosimetry versus 3D forward projection method. Phys Med. 2018;52:65-71.
  12. Low DA, Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 2003;30:2455-2464. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1598711
  13. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin FF, Simon W, Dresser S, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36:4197-4212. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392
  14. van Elmpt W, McDermott L, Nijsten S, Wendling M, Lambin P, Mijnheer B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 2008;88:289-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.008
  15. Stell AM, Li JG, Zeidan OA, Dempsey JF. An extensive logfile analysis of step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errors. Med Phys. 2004;31:1593-1602. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1751011
  16. Kerns JR, Childress N, Kry SF. A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-176
  17. Rangel A, Dunscombe P. Tolerances on MLC leaf position accuracy for IMRT delivery with a dynamic MLC. Med Phys. 2009;36:3304-3309. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3134244
  18. Shin J, Xing S, McCullum L, Hammi A, Pursley J, Correa CA, et al. HEDOS-a computational tool to assess radiation dose to circulating blood cells during external beam radiotherapy based on whole-body blood flow simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66:164001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac16ea
  19. Hammi A, Paganetti H, Grassberger C. 4D blood f low model for dose calculation to circulating blood and lymphocytes. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65:055008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab6c41
  20. Jin JY, Gu A, Wang W, Oleinick NL, Machtay M, Spring Kong FM. Ultra-high dose rate effect on circulating immune cells: a potential mechanism for FLASH effect? Radiother Oncol. 2020;149:55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.054