• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2017

The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of portal dosimetry in comparison with the MapCHECK2 measurments. In this study, a total of 65 treatment plans including both volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively selected and analyzed (45 VMAT plans and 20 IMRT plans). A total of 4 types of linac models (VitalBeam, Trilogy, Clinac 21EXS, and Clianc iX) were used for the comparison between portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements. The VMAT plans were delivered with two VitalBeam linacs (VitalBeam1 and VitalBeam2) and one Trilogy while the IMRT plans were delivered with one Clinac 21EXS and one Clinacl iX. The global gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for IMRT while those were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 2%/2 mm for VMAT. Spearman's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. For VMAT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with the VitalBeam1, VitalBeam2, and Trilogy were $97.3%{\pm}3.5%$, $97.1%{\pm}3.4%$, and $97.5%{\pm}1.9%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.8%{\pm}2.5%$, $96.3%{\pm}2.7%$, and $97.4%{\pm}1.3%$, respectively. For IMRT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with Clinac 21EXS and Clinac iX were $99.7%{\pm}0.3%$ and $99.8%{\pm}0.2%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.5%{\pm}3.3%$ and $97.7%{\pm}3.2%$, respectively. Except for the result with the Trilogy, no correlations were observed between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. Therefore, both the MapCHECK2 measurements and portal dosimetry can be used as an alternative to each other for patient-specific QA for both IMRT and VMAT.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The pre-treatment QA using Portal dosimetry for Volumetric Arc Therapy To analyze whether maintaining the reproducibility depending on various factors. Materials and Methods : Test was used for TrueBeam STx$^{TM}$ (Ver.1.5, Varian, USA). Varian Eclipse Treatment planning system(TPS) was used for planning with total of seven patients include head and neck cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and cervical cancer was established for a Portal dosimetry QA plan. In order to measure these plans, Portal Dosimetry application (Ver.10) (Varian) and Portal Vision aS1000 Imager was used. Each Points of QA was determined by dividing, before and after morning treatment, and the after afternoon treatment ended (after 4 hours). Calibration of EPID(Dark field correction, Flood field correction, Dose normalization) was implemented before Every QA measure points. MLC initialize was implemented after each QA points and QA was retried. Also before QA measurements, Beam Ouput at the each of QA points was measured using the Water Phantom and Ionization chamber(IBA dosimetry, Germany). Results : The mean values of the Gamma pass rate(GPR, 3%, 3mm) for every patients between morning, afternoon and evening was 97.3%, 96.1%, 95.4% and the patient's showing maximum difference was 95.7%, 94.2% 93.7%. The mean value of GPR before and after EPID calibration were 95.94%, 96.01%. The mean value of Beam Output were 100.45%, 100.46%, 100.59% at each QA points. The mean value of GPR before and after MLC initialization were 95.83%, 96.40%. Conclusion : Maintain the reproducibility of the Portal Dosimetry as a VMAT QA tool required management of the various factors that can affect the dosimetry.

• 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.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.53 no.9
• /
• pp.3018-3025
• /
• 2021

The authors developed a volumetric dosimetry detector system using in-house 3D-printable plastic scintillator resins. Three tumor model scintillators (TMSs) were developed using magnetic resonance images of a tumor. The detector system consisted of a TMS, an optical fiber, a photomultiplier tube, and an electrometer. The background signal, including the Cherenkov lights generated in the optical fiber, was subtracted from the output signal. The system showed 2.1% instability when the TMS was reassembled. The system efficiencies in collecting lights for a given absorbed energy were determined by calibration at a secondary standard dosimetry laboratory (k_SSDL) or by calibration using Monte Carlo simulations (k_sim). The TMSs were irradiated in a Gamma Knife® Icon^TM (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) following a treatment plan. The energies absorbed to the TMSs were measured and compared with a calculated value. While the measured energy determined with k_SSDL was (5.84 ± 3.56) % lower than the calculated value, the energy with k_sim was (2.00 ± 0.76) % higher. Although the TMS detector system worked reasonably well in measuring the absorbed energy to a tumor, further improvements in the calibration procedure and system stability are needed for the system to be accepted as a quality assurance tool.

• Journal of the Korean Physical Society
• /
• v.73 no.10
• /
• pp.1571-1576
• /
• 2018

We developed and evaluated an algorithm to calculate the target radiation dose in cancer patients by measuring the transmitted dose during 3D conformal radiation treatment (3D-CRT) treatment. The patient target doses were calculated from the transit dose, which was measured using a glass dosimeter positioned 150 cm from the source. The accuracy of the transit dose algorithm was evaluated using a solid water phantom for five patient treatment plans. We performed transit dose-based patient dose verification during the actual treatment of 34 patients who underwent 3D-CRT. These included 17 patients with breast cancer, 11 with pelvic cancer, and 6 with other cancers. In the solid water phantom study, the difference between the transit dosimetry algorithm with the treatment planning system (TPS) and the measurement was $-0.10{\pm}1.93%$. In the clinical study, this difference was $0.94{\pm}4.13%$ for the patients with 17 breast cancers, $-0.11{\pm}3.50%$ for the eight with rectal cancer, $0.51{\pm}5.10%$ for the four with bone cancer, and $0.91{\pm}3.69%$ for the other five. These results suggest that transit-dosimetry-based in-room patient dose verification is a useful application for 3D-CRT. We expect that this technique will be widely applicable for patient safety in the treatment room through improvements in the transit dosimetry algorithm for complicated treatment techniques (including intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.43-52
• /
• 2019

Background: The mid-term performance of clinical linear accelerator (LINAC) during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment period is not performed in clinical practice and usually replaced with one-time plan quality assurance (QA). In this research we aim to monitor daily reproducibility of VMAT delivery from tracking individual leaf movement error and dosimetric error to evaluate the mid-term quality of the machine used. Materials and Methods: First, multileaf collimator (MLC) information was imported into MATLAB program to determine which of the MLC leaves in the leaf bank had the maximum RMS position error (maxRMS). We estimated where the maximum positional errors (maxPE) of the chosen leaf occur along its path length and tracked its daily variations over the entire treatment period. Secondly, picture information of dosimetric error from portal dosimetry was imported into MATLAB where representative high gamma index region (HGR) was determined as HGR with length of > 1 cm and their centers were daily tracked. Results and Discussion: The maxPEs in the brain and tongue cases were distributed broader than in other cases, but all data were found located within ${\pm}0.5mm$. From first day to last day all of five cases show the similar visual pattern of HGRs and Centers of the longest HGRs remained within ${\pm}1mm$ of that in first day. These findings prove excellent mid-term performance of the LINAC used in VMAT treatments over a full course of treatment. Conclusion: Tracking the daily location changes of leaf movement and dosimetric error can be a good indicator of predicting the daily quality like stability and reproducibility of beam delivering in VMAT treatment.

• 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.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.12
• /
• pp.5019-5024
• /
• 2015

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the dosimetric and clinical feasibility of volumetric modulated arc based hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (RapidArc) treatment for large acoustic schwannoma (AS >10cc). Materials and Methods: Ten AS patients were immobilized using BrainLab mask. They were subject to multimodality imaging (magnetic resonance and computed tomography) to contour target and organs at risk (brainstem and cochlea). Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based stereotactic plans were optimized in Eclipse (V11) treatment planning system (TPS) using progressive resolution optimizer-III and final dose calculations were performed using analytical anisotropic algorithm with 1.5 mm grid resolution. All AS presented in this study were treated with VMAT based HSRT to a total dose of 25Gy in 5 fractions (5fractions/week). VMAT plan contains 2-4 non-coplanar arcs. Treatment planning was performed to achieve at least 99% of PTV volume (D99) receives 100% of prescription dose (25Gy), while dose to OAR's were kept below the tolerance limits. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were analyzed to assess plan quality. Treatments were delivered using upgraded 6 MV un-flattened photon beam (FFF) from Clinac-iX machine. Extensive pretreatment quality assurance measurements were carried out to report on quality of delivery. Point dosimetry was performed using three different detectors, which includes CC13 ion-chamber, Exradin A14 ion-chamber and Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector (PSD) which have measuring volume of $0.13cm^3$, $0.009cm^3$ and $0.002cm^3$ respectively. Results: Average PTV volume of AS was 11.3cc (${\pm}4.8$), and located in eloquent areas. VMAT plans provided complete PTV coverage with average conformity index of 1.06 (${\pm}0.05$). OAR's dose were kept below tolerance limit recommend by American Association of Physicist in Medicine task group-101(brainstem $V_{0.5cc}$ < 23Gy, cochlea maximum < 25Gy and Optic pathway <25Gy). PSD resulted in superior dosimetric accuracy compared with other two detectors (p=0.021 for PSD.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of dose delivery according to the patient's breathing cycle in Gated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Materials and Methods : TrueBeam STxTM(Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA) was used in this experiment. The Computed tomography(CT) images that were acquired with RANDO Phantom(Alderson Research Laboratories Inc. Stamford. CT, USA), using Computerized treatment planning system(Eclipse 10.0, Varian, USA), were used to create VMAT plans using 10MV FFF with 1500 cGy/fx (case 1, 2, 3) and 220 cGy/fx(case 4, 5, 6) of doserate of 1200 MU/min. The regular respiratory period of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 sec and the patients respiratory period of 2.2 and 3.5 sec were reproduced with the $QUASAR^{TM}$ Respiratory Motion Phantom(Modus Medical Devices Inc), and it was set up to deliver radiation at the phase mode between the ranges of 30 to 70%. The results were measured at respective respiratory conditions by a 2-Dimensional ion chamber array detector(I'mRT Matrixx, IBA Dosimetry, Germany) and a MultiCube Phantom(IBA Dosimetry, Germany), and the Gamma pass rate(3 mm, 3%) were compared by the IMRT analysis program(OmniPro I'mRT system software Version 1.7b, IBA Dosimetry, Germany) Results : The gamma pass rates of Case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the results of 100.0, 97.6, 98.1, 96.3, 93.0, 94.8% at a regular respiratory period of 1.5 sec and 98.8, 99.5, 97.5, 99.5, 98.3, 99.6% at 2.5 sec, 99.6, 96.6, 97.5, 99.2, 97.8, 99.1% at 3.5 sec and 99.4, 96.3, 97.2, 99.0, 98.0, 99.3% at 4.5 sec, respectively. When a patient's respiration was reproduced, 97.7, 95.4, 96.2, 98.9, 96.2, 98.4% at average respiratory period of 2.2 sec, and 97.3, 97.5, 96.8, 100.0, 99.3, 99.8% at 3.5 sec, respectively. Conclusion : The experiment showed clinically reliable results of a Gamma pass rate of 95% or more when 2.5 sec or more of a regular breathing period and the patient's breathing were reproduced. While it showed the results of 93.0% and 94.8% at a regular breathing period of 1.5 sec of Case 5 and 6, it could be confirmed that the accurate dose delivery could be possible on the most respiratory conditions because based on the results of 100 patients's respiratory period analysis as no one sustained a respiration of 1.5 sec. But, pretreatment dose verification should be precede because we can't exclude the possibility of error occurrence due to extremely short respiratory period, also a training at the simulation and careful monitoring are necessary for a patient to maintain stable breathing. Consequently, more reliable and accurate treatments can be administered.