• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.81-90
• /
• 2002

Purpose : To establish and verify the proper and the practical IMRT (Intensity--modulated radiation therapy) patient QA (Quality Assurance). Materials and Methods : An IMRT QA which consists of 3 steps and 16 items were designed and examined the validity of the program by applying to 9 patients, 12 IMRT cases of various sites. The three step OA program consists of RTP related QA, treatment information flow QA, and a treatment delivery QA procedure. The evaluation of organ constraints, the validity of the point dose, and the dose distribution are major issues in the RTP related QA procedure. The leaf sequence file generation, the evaluation of the MLC control file, the comparison of the dry run film, and the IMRT field simulate image were included in the treatment information flow procedure QA. The patient setup QA, the verification of the IMRT treatment fields to the patients, and the examination of the data in the Record & Verify system make up the treatment delivery QA procedure. Results : The point dose measurement results of 10 cases showed good agreement with the RTP calculation within $3\%$. One case showed more than a $3\%$ difference and the other case showed more than $5\%$, which was out side the tolerance level. We could not find any differences of more than 2 mm between the RTP leaf sequence and the dry run film. Film dosimetry and the dose distribution from the phantom plan showed the same tendency, but quantitative analysis was not possible because of the film dosimetry nature. No error had been found from the MLC control file and one mis-registration case was found before treatment. Conclusion : This study shows the usefulness and the necessity of the IMRT patient QA program. The whole procedure of this program should be peformed, especially by institutions that have just started to accumulate experience. But, the program is too complex and time consuming. Therefore, we propose practical and essential QA items for institutions in which the IMRT is performed as a routine procedure.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.28-34
• /
• 2011

The measurement-based verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a time-and labor-consuming procedure. Instead, this study aims to develop a MU fluence reconstruction method for IMRT QA. Total actual fluences from treatment planning system (TPS, Eclipse 8.6, Varian) were selected as a reference. Delivered leaf positions according to MU were extracted by the dynalog file generated after IMRT delivery. An in-house software was develop to reconstruct MU fluence from the acquired delivered leaf position data using MATLAB. We investigated five patient's plans delivered by both step-and-shoot IMRT and sliding window technologies. The total actual fluence was compared with the MU fluence reconstructed by using commercial software (Verisoft 3.1, PTW) and gamma analysis method (criteria: 3%/3 mm and 2%/1 mm). Gamma pass rates were $97.8{\pm}1.33$% and the reconstructed fluence was shown good agreement with RTP-based actual fluence. The fluence from step and shoot IMRT was shown slightly higher agreement with the actual fluence than that from sliding window IMRT. If moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations, the developed method can be used for IMRT QA. A point dose calculation method from reconstructed fluences is under development for the routine IMRT QA purpose.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.40-46
• /
• 2006

Hepatoma is one of 3 most common malignancies in Korea, the survival rate is not improved since last decades because of delayed diagnosis and limited treatment conditions. Radiation was one of treatment options but the impact on the survival is not remarkable. High dose exposure to target area was suggested for improved effect but low tolerance dose of normal liver tissue is the main limited factor. IMRT is the advanced form of 3DCRT, for focusing high dose on target with minimal dose to surrounding normal tissues. Motion of the tumor by respiration, cardiac pulsation and peristalsis is the main treatment harrier of IMRT for treatment of hepatoma patients. Development of QA technique for acceptable geometrical uncertainties and dose error on target volume is essential for IMRT in clinical treatment but proper QA technique is not yet developed. This study compared the verification film dosimetry with measured dose in phantom and calculated dose in planning computer on exactly same conditions of patient treatments. Within 3% dose differences between 3 groups were confirmed. We suggest that our verification QA technique is easy, economic, iterative and acceptable in clinical application for advanced hepatoma patients.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.99-106
• /
• 2011

Purpose: To analyze our quality assurance (QA) data for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) according to treatment site and to possibly improve QA for IMRT in Hospital. Materials and Methods: We performed QA on 50 patients (head and neck, 28 patients; Breast, 14 patients; Pelvis, 8 patients) for IMRT. The calculated dose from RTP was compared with the measured value film, gamma index, and ionization chamber for dose measurement in each case. Results: The point dose measurement results in 45 of 50 patients showed good agreement with the calculation dose (${\pm}3%$). The largest error measured thus far has been 3.60%, with a mean of only -0.17% (SD, 2.25%). Each treatment site showed an error rate of -0.13% (SD, 1.93%) for head and neck cases, -0.26% (SD, 2.79%) for breast cases, and 0.24% (SD, 2.44%) for pelvis cases. The gamma index verified with the error rate of head and neck cases (6%), breast (10%), and pelvis (6%), which corresponded to a tolerance of 3 mm (3% for the head and neck, 2%, for the breast 1% for the pelvis, and 0% in the region where the isodose curve was greater than 90%. Conclusion: We recognize the cause of errors for each treatment site of IMRT QA and so we maximize our efforts to reduce error and increase accuracy.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.33-41
• /
• 2012

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.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.91-102
• /
• 2009

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, a 2D ionization chamber array (MatriXX) and an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in the pre-treatment QA of IMRT. Materials and Methods: Fluence patterns, shaped as a wedge with 10 steps (segments) by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC), of reference and test IMRT fields were measured using EDR2 film, the MatriXX, and EPID. Test fields were designed to simulate leaf positioning errors. The absolute dose at a point in each step of the reference fields was measured in a water phantom with an ionization chamber and was compared to the dose obtained with the use of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID. For qualitative analysis, all measured fluence patterns of both reference and test fields were compared with calculated dose maps from a radiation treatment planning system (Pinnacle, Philips, USA) using profiles and $\gamma$ evaluation with 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. By measurement of the time to perform QA, we compared the workload of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID. Results: The percent absolute dose difference between the measured and ionization chamber dose was within 1% for the EPID, 2% for the MatriXX and 3% for EDR2 film. The percentage of pixels with $\gamma$%>1 for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria was within 2% for use of both EDR2 film and the EPID. However, differences for the use of the MatriXX were seen with a maximum difference as great as 5.94% with the 2%/2 mm criteria. For the test fields, EDR2 film and EPID could detect leaf-positioning errors on the order of -3 mm and -2 mm, respectively. However it was difficult to differentiate leaf-positioning errors with the MatriXX due to its poor resolution. The approximate time to perform QA was 110 minutes for the use of EDR2 film, 80 minutes for the use of the MatriXX and approximately 55 minutes for the use of the EPID. Conclusion: This study has evaluated the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID in the pre-treatment verification of IMRT. EDR2 film and the EPID showed better performance for accuracy, while the use of the MatriXX significantly reduced measurement and analysis times. We propose practical and useful methods to establish an effective QA system in a clinical environment.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2014

Purpose : Conventional, IMRT, at CSI treatment with VMAT, this study compare the treatment plan with dose changes measured at Junction field according to the error of Setup. Materials and Methods : This study established Conventional, the IMRT, VMAT treatment planning for CSI therapy using the Eclipse 10.0 (Eclipse10.0, Varian, USA) and chose person in Seoul National University Hospital. Verification plan was also created to apply IMRT QA phantom for each treatment plan to the film measurements. At this time, the error of Setup was applied to the 2, 4, 6mm respectively with the head and foot direction. ("+" direction of the head, "-" means that the foot direction.) Using IMRT QA Phantom and EBT2 film, was investigated by placing the error of Setup for each Junction. We check the consistency of the measured Film and plan dose distribution by gamma index (Gamma index, ${\gamma}$). In addition, we compared the error of Setup by the dose distribution, and analyzing the uniformity of the dose distribution within the target by calculating the Homogeneity Index (HI). Results : It was figured out that 90.49%-gamma index we obtained with film is agreement with film scan score and dose distribution of treatment plan. Also, depend on the dose distribution on distance, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the head direction, it showed that 3.1, 4.5, 8.1 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, 1.1, 3.5, 6.3 at IMRT, and 1.6, 2.5, 5.7 at VMAT. In the same way, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the foot direction, it showed that -1.6, -2.8, -4.4 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, -0.9, -1.6, -2.9 at IMRT, and -0.5, -2.2, -2.5 at VMAT. Homogeneity Index(HI)s are 1.216 at Conventional, 1.095 at IMRT and 1.069 at VMAT. Discussion and Conclusion : The dose-change depend on the error of Setup at the CSI RT(radiation therapy) using IMRT and VMAT which have advantages, Dose homogeneity and the gradual dose gradients on the Junction part is lower than that of Conventional CSI RT. This a little change of dose means that there is less danger on patients despite of the error of Setup generated at the CSI RT.

• Journal of The Korean Radiological Technologist Association
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.49-57
• /
• 2004

I. Purpose : Measure the absolute point dose and film dosimetry in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of head and neck cancers. A comparison of objective view between measured and calculated dose dlistribution look through optimization algorithm

• 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.

• 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.