Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and portal dose image prediction (PDIP) for patient-specific quality assurance based on electronic portal imaging device, and to evaluate the clinical feasibility of portal dosimetry using AAA. Subjects and methods: We retrospectively selected a total of 32 patients, including 15 lung cancer patients and 17 liver cancer patients. Verification plans were generated using PDIP and AAA. We obtained gamma passing rates by comparing the calculated distribution with the measured distribution and obtained MLC positional difference values. Results: The mean gamma passing rate for lung cancer patients was 99.5% ± 1.1% for 3%/3 mm using PDIP and 90.6% ± 5.8% for 1%/1 mm. Using AAA, the mean gamma passing rate was 98.9% ± 1.7% for 3%/3 mm and 87.8% ± 5.2% for 1%/1 mm. The mean gamma passing rate for liver cancer patients was 99.9% ± 0.3% for 3%/3 mm using PDIP and 96.6% ± 4.6% for 1%/1 mm. Using AAA, the mean gamma passing rate was 99.6% ± 0.5% for 3%/3 mm and 89.5% ± 6.4% for 1%/1 mm. The MLC positional difference was small at 0.013 mm ± 0.002 mm and showed no correlation with the gamma passing rate. Conclusion: The AAA algorithm can be clinically used as a portal dosimetry calculation algorithm for patientspecific quality assurance based on electronic portal imaging device.
목 적: 전자포탈영상장치 기반의 환자특이적 정도관리를 위한 portal dose image prediction (PDIP)와 anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA)을 비교하여 성능을 분석하고, AAA를 사용한 portal dosimetry의 임상적 사용 가능성을 평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 폐암 환자 15명과 간암 환자 17명, 총 32명의 환자를 후향적으로 선정하였다. PDIP와 AAA를 사용하여 검증용 치료계획을 생성하였다. 계산된 분포와 측정된 분포를 비교한 감마통과율(Gamma passing rate, GPR)과 다엽콜리메이터(Multileaf collimator, MLC) 위치 차이를 얻었다. 결 과: 폐암 환자군의 GPR 평균값은 PDIP 사용시 3%/3 mm에 대해 99.5% ± 1.1%, 1%/1 mm에 대해 90.6% ± 5.8%였다. AAA 사용시 3%/3 mm에 대해 98.9% ± 1.7%, 1%/1 mm에 대해 87.8% ± 5.2%였다. 간암 환자군의 GPR 평균값은 PDIP 사용시 3%/3 mm에 대해 99.9% ± 0.3%, 1%/1 mm에 대해 96.6% ± 4.6%였다. AAA 사용시 3%/3 mm에 대해 99.6% ± 0.5%, 1%/1 mm에 대해 89.5% ± 6.4%였다. MLC 위치 차이는 0.013 mm ± 0.002 mm로 적었으며, 감마통과율과 상관관계를 보이지 않았다. 결 론: 전자포탈영상장치 기반 환자특이적 정도관리를 수행할 때 AAA를 임상적으로 portal dosimetry 계산 알고리즘으로써 사용할 수 있다.