대한방사선치료학회지 (The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy)

  • 제35권
  • /
  • Pages.15-21
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1598-8449(pISSN)
대한방사선치료학회 (Korean Society for Radiation Therapy)
권호 표지

Portal dose image prediction과 anisotropic analytical algorithm을 사용한 환자 특이적 정도관리 결과 비교 분석

Comparison Analysis of Patient Specific Quality Assurance Results using portal dose image prediction and Anisotropic analytical algorithm

  • 안범석 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김보겸 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 이제희 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과)
  • BEOMSEOK AHN (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • BOGYOUM KIM (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • JEHEE LEE (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 발행 : 2023.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Osman AFI, Maalej NM: Applications of machine and deep learning to patient-specific IMRT/VMAT quality assurance. JACMP 2021;22:20-36 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13375
  2. 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
  3. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S et al.: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25:656-661 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  4. Yu L, Tang TLS, Cassim N et al.: Analysis of dose comparison techniques for patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy. JACMP 2019;20:189-198 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12726
  5. 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
  6. James S, Albasheer A, Elder E et al.: Evaluation of commercial devices for patient specific QA of stereotactic radiotherapy plans. JACMP 2023:e14009
  7. Kim YL, Chung JB, Kim JS et al.: 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
  8. Son JM, Baek TS, Lee BR et al.: A comparison of the quality assurance of four dosimetric tools for intensity modulated radiation therapy. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49:307-313 https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2015-0021
  9. 이충원, 박도근 최아현 등: EPID (Electronic Portal Imaging Device)의 유용성에 관한 고찰. 대한방사선치료학회지 2013;25:57-67
  10. Alharthi T, Arumugam S, Vial P et al.: EPID sensitivity to delivery errors for pre-treatment verification of lung SBRT VMAT plans. Phys. Med. 2019;59:37-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.02.007
  11. Laugeman E, Heermann A, Hilliard J et al.: Comprehensive validation of halcyon 2.0 plans and the implementation of patient specific QA with multiple detector platforms. JACMP 2020;21:39-48 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12881
  12. Razinskas G, Schindhelm R, Sauer OA et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of Varian Halcyon's portal dosimetry for plan-specific pre-treatment QA. JACMP 2023:e14401
  13. Paula K.: Comparison of dosimetric quality assurance methods for stereotactic treatment plans. Tampere University, MS thesis 2019
  14. Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY: Modulation indices and plan delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. JACMP 2019;20:12-22 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12589