Browse > Article

Quality Assurance of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Elekta Synergy  

Shim, Su-Jung (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Eulji University)
Shim, Jang-Bo (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Korea University)
Lee, Sang-Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University College of Medicine)
Min, Chul-Kee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine)
Cho, Kwang-Hwan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine)
Shin, Dong-Oh (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
Choi, Jin-Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Gachon University Gil Hospital)
Park, Sung-Ill (Department of Medical Physics, Graduate School of Science, Kyonggi University)
Cho, Sam-Ju (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Eulji University)
Publication Information
Progress in Medical Physics / v.23, no.1, 2012 , pp. 33-41 More about this Journal
Abstract
For applying the quality assurance (QA) of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) introduced in Eulji Hospital, we classify it into three different QA steps, treatment planning QA, pretreatment delivering QA, and treatment verifying QA. These steps are based on the existing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA that is currently used in our hospital. In each QA step, the evaluated items that are from QA program are configured and documented. In this study, QA program is not only applied to actual patient treatment, but also evaluated to establish a reference of clinical acceptance in pretreatment delivering QA. As a result, the confidence limits (CLs) in the measurements for the high-dose and low-dose regions are similar to the conventional IMRT level, and the clinical acceptance references in our hospital are determined to be 3 to 5% for the high-dose and the low-dose regions, respectively. Due to the characteristics of VMAT, evaluation of the intensity map was carried out using an ArcCheck device that was able to measure the intensity map in all directions, $360^{\circ}$. With a couple of dosimetric devices, the gamma index was evaluated and analyzed. The results were similar to the result of individual intensity maps in IMRT. Mapcheck, which is a 2-dimensional (2D) array device, was used to display the isodose distributions and gave very excellent local CL results. Thus, in our hospital, the acceptance references used in practical clinical application for the intensity maps of $360^{\circ}$ directions and the coronal isodose distributions were determined to be 93% and 95%, respectively. To reduce arbitrary uncertainties and system errors, we had to evaluate the local CLs by using a phantom and to cooperate with multiple organizations to participate in this evaluation. In addition, we had to evaluate the local CLs by dividing them into different sections about the patient treatment points in practical clinics.
Keywords
Treatment verifying QA; IMRT; VMAT; Confidence limit; QA protocol;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Webb S: Contemporary IMRT: Developing physics and clinical applications. Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics Publishing (2005)
2 Otto K: Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 35:310-317 (2008)   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al: Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys 30:2089-2115 (2003)   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, et al: Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 21:581-618 (1994)
5 Kirby M, Ryde S, Hall C: Acceptance testing and commissioning of linear accelerators. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, UK. (2006), pp. 53
6 Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al: IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisions: Report of AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 36:5359-5373 (2009)   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Hansen VN, Evans PM, Budgell GJ, et al: Quality assurance of the dose delivered by small radiation segments. Phys Med Biol 43:2665-2675 (1998)   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Sharpe MB, Miller BM, Yan D, et al: Monitor unit settings for intensity modulated beams delivered using a step-and-shoot approach. Med Phys 27:2719-2725 (2000)   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Palta JR, Mackie TR: Intensity modulated radiation therapy-The state of the art Medical Physics. Madison, WI, (2003), pp.593
10 Bedford JL, Webb S: Direct-aperture optimization applied to selection of beam orientations in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 52:479-498 (2007)   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Spirou SV, Chui CS: Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys 21:1031-1041 (1994)   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25:656-661 (1998)   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Bedford JL, Webb S: Direct-aperture optimization applied to selection of beam orientations in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 52:479-498 (2007)   DOI   ScienceOn