• 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.29 no.4
• /
• pp.137-142
• /
• 2018

This study aimed to evaluate and verify a process for correcting the extended source-to-imager distance (SID) in portal dosimetry (PD). In this study, eight treatment plans (four volumetric modulated arc therapy and four intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans) at different treatment sites and beam energies were selected for measurement. A Varian PD system with portal dose image prediction (PDIP) was used for the measurement and verification. To verify the integrity of the plan, independent measurements were performed with the MapCHECK device. The predicted and measured fluence were evaluated using the gamma passing rate. The output ratio was defined as the ratio of the absolute dose of the reference SID (100 cm) to that of each SID (120 cm or 140 cm). The measured fluence for each SID was absolutely and relatively compared. The average SID output ratios were 0.687 and 0.518 for 120 SID and 140 SID, respectively; the ratio showed less than 1% agreement with the calculation obtained by using the inverse square law. The resolution of the acquired EPIDs were 0.336, 0.280, and 0.240 for 100, 120, and 140 SID, respectively. The gamma passing rates with PD and MapCHECK exceeded 98% for all treatment plans and SIDs. When autoalignment was performed in PD, the X-offset showed no change, and the Y-offset decreased with increasing SID. The PD-generated PDIP can be used for extended SID without additional correction.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.66-72
• /
• 2018

The proper position of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) is essential for the quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) dose delivery. Task Group (TG) 142 provides a quality assurance (QA) procedure for MLC position. Our study investigated the QA validation of the mechanical leaf gap measurement and the maintenance procedure. Two $VitalBeam^{TM}$ systems were evaluated to validate the acceptance of an MLC position. The dosimetric leaf gaps (DLGs) were measured for 6 MV, 6 MVFFF, 10 MV, and 15 MV photon beams. A solid water phantom was irradiated using $10{\times}10cm^2$ field size at source-to-surface distance (SSD) of 90 cm and depth of 10 cm. The portal dose image prediction (PDIP) calculation was implemented on a treatment planning system (TPS) called $Eclipse^{TM}$. A total of 20 VMAT plans were used to confirm the accuracy of dose distribution measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and those predicted by VMAT plans. The measured leaf gaps were 0.30 mm and 0.35 mm for VitalBeam 1 and 2, respectively. The DLG values decreased by an average of 6.9% and 5.9% after mechanical MLC adjustment. Although the passing rates increased slightly, by 1.5% (relative) and 1.2% (absolute) in arc 1, the average passing rates were still within the good dose delivery level (>95%). Our study shows the existence of a mechanical leaf gap error caused by a degenerated MLC motor. This can be recovered by reinitialization of MLC position on the machine control panel. Consequently, the QA procedure should be performed regularly to protect the MLC system.