• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.91-97
• /
• 2007

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of a commercial ion chamber array for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) was performed IMRT patient-specific QA Materials and Methods: A use of IMRT patient-specific QA was examined for nasopharyngeal patient by using 6MV photon beams. The MatriXX (Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany) was used for IMRT QA. The case of nasopharyngeal cancer was performed inverse treatment planning. A hybrid dose distribution made on the CT data of MatriXX and solid phantom all of the same gantry angle (0$^\circ$). The measurement was acquired with geometrical condition that equal to hybrid treatment planning. The $\gamma$-index (dose difference 3%, DTA 3 mm) histogram was used for quantitative analysis of dose discrepancies. An absolute dose was compared at the high dose low gradient region. Results: The dose distribution was shown a good agreement by gamma evaluation. A proportion of acceptance criteria was 95.8%, 97.52%, 96.28%, 98.20%, 97.78%, 96.64% and 92.70% for gantry angles were 0$^\circ$, 55$^\circ$, 110$^\circ$, 140$^\circ$, 220$^\circ$, 250$^\circ$ and 305$^\circ$, respectively. The absolute dose in high dose low gradient region was shown reasonable agreement with the RTP calculation within $\pm$3%. Conclusion: The MatriXX offers the dosimetric characteristics required for performing both relative and absolute measurements. If MatriXX use in the clinic, it could be simplified and reduced the IMRT patient-specific QA workload. Therefore, the MatriXX is evaluated as a reliable and convenient dosimeter for IMRT patient-specific QA.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.51-58
• /
• 2011

The aim of the study is to analyze the dose delivery error depending on the depth variation according to target positions and arc trajectories by comparing the simulated treatment planning with the actual dose delivery in conformal arc therapy. We simulated the conformal arc treatment planning with the three target positions (center, 2.5 cm, and 5 cm in the phantom). For the experiments, IMRT body phantom (I’mRT Phantom, Wellhofer Dosimetry, Germany) was used for treatment planning with CT (Computed Tomography, Light speed 16, GE, USA). The simulated treatment plans were established by three different target positions using treatment planning system (Eclipse, ver. 6.5, VMS, Palo Alto, USA). The radiochromic film (Gafchromic EBT2, ISP, Wayne, USA) and dose analysis software (OmniPro-IMRT, ver. 1.4, Wellhofer Dosimetry, Germany) were used for the measurement of the planned arc delivery using 6 MV photon beam from linear accelerator (CL21EX, VMS, Palo Alto, USA). Gamma index (DD: 3%, DTA: 2 mm) histogram and dose profile were evaluated for a quantitative analysis. The dose distributions surrounded by targets were also compared with each plans and measurements by conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI). The area covered by 100% isodose line was compared to the whole target area. The results for the 5 cm-shifted target plan show that 23.8%, 35.6%, and 37% for multiple conformal arc therapy (MCAT), single conformal arc therapy (SCAT), and multiple static beam therapy, respectively. In the 2.5 cm-shifted target plan, it was shown that 61%, 21.5%, and 14.2%, while in case of center-located target, 70.5%, 14.1%, and 36.3% for MCAT, SCAT, and multiple static beam therapy, respectively. The values were resulted by most superior in the MCAT, except the case of the 5 cm-shifted target. In the analysis of gamma index histogram, it was resulted of 37.1, 27.3, 29.2 in the SCAT, while 9.2, 8.4, 10.3 in the MCAT, for the target positions of center, shifted 2.5 cm and 5 cm, respectively. The fail proportions of the SCAT were 2.8 to 4 times as compared to those of the MCAT. In conclusion, dose delivery error could be occurred depending on the target positions and arc trajectories. Hence, if the target were located in the biased position, the accurate dose delivery could be performed through the optimization of depth according to arc trajectory.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.277-282
• /
• 2010

The study is to verify non-uniform dose distribution in Field-In-Field (FIF) technique using two-dimensional ionization chamber (MatriXX, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany) for breast tangential irradiation. The MatriXX and an inverse planning system (Eclipse, ver 6.5, Varian, Palo Alto, USA) were used. Hybrid plans were made from the original twenty patients plans. To verify the non-uniform dose distribution in FIF technique, each portal prescribed doses (90 cGy) was delivered to the MatriXX. The measured doses on the MatriXX were compared to the planned doses. The quantitative analyses were done with a commercial analyzing tool (OmniPro IMRT, ver. 1.4, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany). The delivered doses at the normalization points were different to average 1.6% between the calculated and the measured. In analysis of line profiles, there were some differences of 1.3-5.5% (Avg: 2.4%), 0.9-3.9% (Avg: 2.5%) in longitudinal and transverse planes respectively. For the gamma index (criteria: 3 mm, 3%) analyses, there were shown that 90.23-99.69% (avg: 95.11%, std: 2.81) for acceptable range ($\gamma$-index $\geq$ 1) through the twenty patients cases. In conclusion, through our study, we have confirmed the availability of the FIF technique by comparing the calculated with the measured using MatriXX. In the future, various clinical applications of the FIF techniques would be good trials for better treatment results.