• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.53 no.12
• /
• pp.4098-4105
• /
• 2021

The aim of this study is to calculate the JO-IMRT dose distributions based on the AAPM TG-119 using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and Prowess Panther treatment planning system (TPS) (Panther, Prowess Inc., Chico, CA). JO-IMRT dose distributions of AAPM TG-119 were calculated by the TPS and were recalculated by MC simulation. The DVHs and 3D gamma index using global methods implemented in the PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm were used for evaluation. JO-IMRT dose distributions calculated by TPS and MC were matched the TG-119 goals. The gamma index passing rates with 3%/3 mm were 98.7% for multi-target, 96.0% for mock prostate, 95.4% for mock head-and-neck, and 96.6% for C-shape. The dose in the planning target volumes (PTV) for TPS was larger than that for the MC. The relative dose differences in D99 between TPS and MC for multi-target are 1.52%, 0.17% and 1.40%, for the center, superior and inferior, respectively. The differences in D95 are 0.16% for C-shape; and 0.06% for mock prostate. Mock head-and-neck difference is 0.40% in D99. In contrast, the organ curve for TPS tended to be smaller than MC values. JO-IMRT dose distributions for the AAPM TG-119 calculated by the TPS agreed well with the MC.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.99-105
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT in our clinic from based on TG119 procedure and establish action level. Five IMRT test cases were described in TG119: multi-target, head&neck, prostate, and two C-shapes (easy&hard). There were used and delivered to water-equivalent solid phantom for IMRT. Absolute dose for points in target and OAR was measured by using an ion chamber (CC13, IBA). EBT2 film was utilized to compare the measured two-dimensional dose distribution with the calculated one by treatment planning system. All collected data were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the confidence limit. The mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.2{\pm}1.1%$ and $1.2{\pm}0.7%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The resulting confidence limits were 3.4% and 2.6%. In EBT2 film dosimetry, the average percentage of points passing the gamma criteria (3%/3 mm) was $97.7{\pm}0.8%$. Confidence limit values determined by EBT2 film analysis was 3.9%. This study has focused on IMRT commissioning and quality assurance based on TG119 guideline. It is concluded that action level were ${\pm}4%$ and ${\pm}3%$ for target and OAR and 97% for film measurement, respectively. It is expected that TG119-based procedure can be used as reference to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT for each institution.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.577-585
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of beam delivery QA software using the MLC dynalog file, about the VMAT plan with AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Clinac iX with a built-in 120 MLC was used to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx(MFX). To establish VMAT plan, Oncentra RTP system was used target and organ structures were contoured in Im'RT phantom. For evaluation of dose distribution was evaluated by using gamma index, and the point dose was evaluated by using the CC13 ion chamber in Im'RT phantom. For the evaluation of point dose, the mean of relative error between measured and calculated value was $1.41{\pm}0.92%$(Target) and $0.89{\pm}0.86%$(OAR), the confidence limit were 3.21(96.79%, Target) and 2.58(97.42%, OAR). For the evaluation of dose distribution, in case of $Delta^{4PT}$, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.78{\pm}0.2%$(3%/3 mm), $96.86{\pm}1.76%$(2%/2 mm). In case of MFX, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.90{\pm}0.14%$(3%/3 mm), $97.98{\pm}1.97%$(2%/2 mm), the confidence limits(CL) were in case of $Delta^{4PT}$ 0.62(99.38%, 3%/3 mm), 6.6(93.4%, 2%/2 mm), in case of MFX, 0.38(99.62%, 3%/3 mm), 5.88(94.12%, 2%/2 mm). In this study, we performed VMAT QA method using dynamic MLC log file compare to binary diode array chamber. All analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119 protocol.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.168-177
• /
• 2015

For evaluating the treatment planning accurately, the quality assurance for treatment planning is recommended when patients were treated with IMRT which is complex and delicate. To realize this purpose, treatment plan quality assurance software can be used to verify the delivered dose accurately before and after of treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plan quality assurance software for each IMRT plan according to MLC DLG (dosimetric leaf gap). Novalis Tx with a built-in HD120 MLC was used in this study to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx. To establish IMRT plan, Eclipse RTP system was used and target and organ structures (multi-target, mock prostate, mock head/neck, C-shape case) were contoured in I'mRT phantom. To verify the difference of dose distribution according to DLG, MLC dynalog files were imported to MobiusFx software and changed the DLG (0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 mm) values in MobiusFx. For evaluation dose, dose distribution was evaluated by using 3D gamma index for the gamma criteria 3% and distance to agreement 3 mm, and the point dose was acquired by using the CC13 ionization chamber in isocenter of I'mRT phantom. In the result for point dose, the mock head/neck and multi-target had difference about 4% and 3% in DLG 0.5 and 0.7 mm respectively, and the other DLGs had difference less than 3%. The gamma index passing-rate of mock head/neck were below 81% for PTV and cord, and multi-target were below 30% for center and superior target in DLGs 0.5, 0.7 mm, however, inferior target of multi-target case and parotid of mock head/neck case had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. The point dose of mock prostate showed difference below 3.0% in all DLGs, however, the passing rate of PTV were below 95% in 0.5, 0.7 mm DLGs, and the other DLGs were above 98%. The rectum and bladder had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. As the difference of point dose in C-shape were 3~9% except for 1.3 mm DLG, the passing rate of PTV in 1.0 1.3 mm were 96.7, 93.0% respectively. However, passing rate of the other DLGs were below 86% and core was 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. In this study, we verified that the accuracy of treatment planning QA system can be affected by DLG values. For precise quality assurance for treatment technique using the MLC motion like IMRT and VMAT, we should use appropriate DLG value in linear accelerator and RTP system.