• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.15-21
• /
• 2023

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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.149-155
• /
• 2017

Radiotherapy patients should maintain their treatment position as patient setup is very important for accurate treatment. In this study, we evaluated patient setup error quantitatively according to Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Gamma Density Analysis using Mobius CBCT. The adjusted setup error to the $QUASAR^{TM}$ phantom was moved artificially in the superior and lateral direction, and then we acquired the CBCT image according to the phantom setup error. To analyze the treatment setup error quantitatively, we compared values suggested in the CBCT system with the Mobius CBCT. This allowed us to evaluate the setup error using CBCT Gamma Density Analysis by comparing the planning CT with the CBCT. In addition, we acquired the 3D-gamma density passing rate according to the gamma density criteria and phantom setup error. When the movement was adjusted to only the phantom body or 3 cm diameter target inserted in the phantom, the CBCT system had a difference of approximately 1 mm, while Mobius CBCT had a difference of under 0.5 mm compared to the real setup error. When the phantom body and target moved 20 mm in the Mobius CBCT, there are 17.9 mm and 13.5 mm differences in the lateral and superior directions, respectively. The CBCT gamma density passing rate was reduced according to the increase in setup error, and the gamma density criteria of 0.1 g/cc/3 mm has 10% lower passing rate than the other density criteria. Mobius CBCT had a 2 mm setup error compared with the actual setup error. However, the difference was greater than 10 mm when the phantom body moved 20 mm with the target. Therefore, we should pay close attention when the patient's anatomy changes.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.153-162
• /
• 2020

Purpose: We aim to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of an automatically converted radiation therapy plan between Radixact machines by comparing the original plan with the transferred plan. Methods: The study involved a total of 20 patients for each randomly selected treatment site who received radiation treatment with Radixact. We set up the cheese phantom (Gammex RMI, Middleton, WI, USA) with an Exradin A1SL ion chamber (Standard Imaging, Madison, WI, USA) and GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film (International Specialty Products, Wayne, NJ, USA) inserted. We used three methods to evaluate an automatically converted radiation therapy plan using the features of the Plan transfer. First, we evaluated and compared Planning target volume (PTV) coverage (homogeneity index, HI; conformity index, CI) and organs at risk (OAR) dose statistics. Second, we compared the absolute dose using an ion chamber. Lastly, we analyzed gamma passing rates using film. Results: Our results showed that the difference in PTV coverage was 1.72% in HI and 0.17% in CI, and majority of the difference in OAR was within 1% across all sites. The difference (%) in absolute dose values was averaging 0.74%. In addition, the gamma passing rate was 99.64% for 3%/3 mm and 97.08% for 2%/2 mm. Conclusions: The Plan transfer function can be reliably used in appropriate situations.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.65-71
• /
• 2014

A Varian Portal Dosimetry system was compared to an isocentrically mounted MapCHECK 2 diode array for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA. A Varian TrueBeam STx with an aS-1000 digital imaging panel was used to acquire VMAT QA images for 13 plans using four photon energies (6, 8, 10 and 15 MV). The EPID-based QA images were compared to the Portal Dose Image Prediction calculated in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). An isocentrically mounted Sun Nuclear MapCHECK 2 diode array with 5 cm water-equivalent buildup was also used for the VMAT QAs and the measurements were compared to a composite dose plane from the Eclipse TPS. A ${\gamma}$ test was implemented in the Sun Nuclear Patient software with 10% threshold and absolute comparison at 1%/1 mm (dose difference/distance-to-agreement), 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria for both QA methods. The two-tailed paired Student's t-test was employed to analyze the statistical significance at 95% confidence level. The average ${\gamma}$ passing rates were greater than 95% at 3%/3 mm using both methods for all four energies. The differences in the average passing rates between the two methods were within 1.7% and 1.6% of each other when analyzed at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm, respectively. The EPID passing rates were somewhat better than the MapCHECK 2 when analyzed at 1%/1 mm; the difference was lower for 8 MV and 10 MV. However, the differences were not statistically significant for all criteria and energies (p-values >0.05). The EPID-based QA showed large off-axis over-response and dependence of ${\gamma}$ passing rate on energy, while the MapCHECK 2 was susceptible to the MLC tongue-and-groove effect. The two fluence-based QA techniques can be an alternative tool of VMAT QA to each other, if the limitations of each QA method (mechanical sag, detector response, and detector alignment) are carefully considered.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.53-64
• /
• 2017

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of the $HexaPOD^{TM}$ evo RT system(6DoF couch) and the tendency of dose difference according to size of rotational direction error for volumetric rotational modulated radiotherapy(V-MAT) in patients with long target lengths. Therefore, it is suggested to recommend the need for rotational error correction. Materials and Methods: Ten patients with Esophagus cancer or Breast cancer including SCL treated with HexaPOD 6DoF(Six-Degree of Freedom) couch were included in this study. 6DoF couch was used to measure the difference in dose according to the rotation error in the directions of Rx(pitch), Ry(roll), and Rz(yaw). Each rotation error was applied. Positioning variation on x, y and z axis was verified and random variations were made by 6DoF couch with positioning variation. Modified DQA is conducted and point dose and gamma value are analyzed and compared. In addition, after applying the rotation error every $1^{\circ}$ to treatment plans of each target with a diameter of 3 cm, 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm respectively, gamma passing rate is being monitored by its aspect of change according to types and sizes of the target length and rotation error. Results: Mean error of the point dose and Gamma passing rate when the position variation was applied were $2.50{\pm}1.11%$ and $84.1{\pm}7.39%$ in the Rx direction, $2.36{\pm}1.16%$, and $81.0{\pm}8.49%$ in the Ry, $2.35{\pm}1.10%$ and $84.4{\pm}6.99%$ in the Rz direction, respectively. As a result of analysis on gamma passing rate according to types and sizes of the target length and rotation error, the gamma passing rate tended to decrease with increasing rotation error in the Rx and Rz directions except Ry direction. In particular, the lowest gamma passing rate (74.2 %) was in the case of $2.5^{\circ}$ rotation error in Rz direction of the target of 10 cm. Conclusion: The correction of the rotational error is needed for volumetric modulated radiotherapy of the treatment area with a long target length, and the use of 6DoF couch will improve the reproducibility of the patient position and the quality of the treatment.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.53-59
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the difference between the MLC log file-based software (Mobius) and the conventional phantom-ionization chamber (ArcCheck) dose verification method according to the change of target volume. Material and method: Radius 0.25cm, 0.5cm, 1cm, 2cm, 3cm, 4cm, 5cm, 6cm, 7cm, 8cm, 9cm, 10cm with a Sphere-shaped target Twelve plans were created and dose verification using Mobius and ArcCheck was conducted three times each. The irradiated data were compared and analyzed using the point dose error value and the gamma passing rate (3%/3mm) as evaluation indicators. Result: Mobius point dose error values were -9.87% at a radius of 0.25cm and -4.39% at 0.5cm, and the error value was within 3% at the remaining target volume. The gamma passing rate was 95% at a radius of 9cm and 93.9% at 10cm, and a passing rate of more than 95% was shown in the remaining target volume. In ArcCheck, the average error value of the point dose was about 2% in all target volumes. The gamma passing rate also showed a pass rate of 98% or more in all target volumes. Conclusion: For small targets with a radius of 0.5cm or less or a large target with a radius of 9cm or more, considering the uncertainty of DQA based on MLC log files, phantom-ionized DQA is used in complementary ways to include point dose, gamma index, DVH, and target coverage. It is believed that it is desirable to verify the dose delivery through a comprehensive analysis.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.107-115
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical quality assurance results of portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device, a method that is extensively used for patient-specific quality assurance, and the newly released Mobius3D for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: This retrospective study includes data from 122 patients who underwent IMRT and VMAT on the Novalis Tx and VitalBeam linear accelerators between April and June 2020. We used a paired t-test to compare portal dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device and the average gamma passing rates of MobiusFX using log files regenerated after patient treatment. Results: The average gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm) were 99.43%±1.02% and 99.32%±1.87% in VitalBeam and 97.53%±3.34% and 96.45%±13.94% in Novalis Tx, respectively. Comparison of the gamma passing rate results of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and MobiusFX (5%/3 mm as per the manufacturer's manual) does not show any statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Log file-based patient-specific quality assurance, including independent dose calculation, can be appropriately used in clinical practice as a second-check dosimetry, and it is considered comparable with primary quality assurance such as portal dosimetry.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.108-115
• /
• 2022

Background: This study was aimed at comparing and analyzing the results of FractionLab (Varian/Mobius Medical System) with those of portal dosimetry that uses an electronic portal imaging device. Portal dosimetry is extensively used for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: The study includes 29 patients who underwent IMRT on a Novalis-Tx linear accelerator (Varian Medical System and Brain-LAB) between June 2019 and March 2021. We analyzed the multileaf collimator DynaLog files generated after portal dosimetry to evaluate the same condition using FractionLab. The results of the recently launched FractionLab at various gamma indices (0.1%/0.1 mm-1%/1 mm) are analyzed and compared with those of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm). Results: The average gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and FractionLab are 98.1% (95.5%-100%) and 97.5% (92.3%-99.7%) at 0.6%/0.6 mm, respectively. The results of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) are statistically comparable with the QA results of FractionLab (0.6%/0.6 mm-0.9%/0.9 mm). Conclusion: This paper presents the clinical performance of FractionLab by the comparison of the QA results of FractionLab using portal dosimetry with various gamma indexes when performing patient-specific QA in IMRT treatment. Further, the appropriate gamma index when performing patient-specific QA with FractionLab is provided.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.53-58
• /
• 2018

This paper evaluates patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) in the treatment of small and multiple tumors by the CyberKnife system with fixed collimators, using an ion chamber and EBT3 films. We selected 49 patients with single or multiple brain tumors, and the treatment plans include one to four targets with total volumes ranging from 0.12 cc to 3.74 cc. All PSQA deliveries were performed with a stereotactic dose verification phantom. The A16 microchamber (Standard Imaging, WI, USA) and Gafchromic EBT3 film (Ashland ISP Advanced Materials, NJ, USA) were inserted into the phantom to measure the point dose of the target and the dose distribution, respectively. The film was scanned 1 hr after irradiation by a film digitizer scanner and analyzed using RIT software (Radiological Imaging Technology, CO, USA). The acceptance criteria was <5% for the point dose measurement and >90% gamma passing rate using 3%/3 mm and relative dose difference, respectively. The point dose errors between the calculated and measured dose by the ion chamber were in the range of -17.5% to 8.03%. The mean point dose differences for 5 mm, 7.5 mm, and 10 mm fixed cone size was -11.1%, -4.1%, and -1.5%, respectively. The mean gamma passing rates for all cases was 96.1%. Although the maximum dose distribution of multiple targets was not shown in the film, gamma distribution showed that dose verification for multiple tumors can be performed. The use of the microchamber and EBT3 film made it possible to verify the dosimetric and mechanical accuracy of small and multiple targets. In particular, the correction factors should be applied to small fixed collimators less than 10 mm.

• 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.