DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Optimal Density Assignment to 2D Diode Array Detector for Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Patient Specific VMAT QA

  • Park, So-Yeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Chang Heon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Chun, Minsoo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Han, Ji Hye (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Jin Dong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.01.04
  • Accepted : 2017.02.22
  • Published : 2017.03.31

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to assign an appropriate density to virtual phantom for 2D diode array detector with different dose calculation algorithms to guarantee the accuracy of patient-specific QA. Materials and Methods: Ten VMAT plans with 6 MV photon beam and ten VMAT plans with 15 MV photon beam were selected retrospectively. The computed tomography (CT) images of MapCHECK2 with MapPHAN were acquired to design the virtual phantom images. For all plans, dose distributions were calculated for the virtual phantoms with four different materials by AAA and AXB algorithms. The four materials were polystyrene, 455 HU, Jursinic phantom, and PVC. Passing rates for several gamma criteria were calculated by comparing the measured dose distribution with calculated dose distributions of four materials. Results and Discussion: For validation of AXB modeling in clinic, the mean percentages of agreement in the cases of dose difference criteria of 1.0% and 2.0% for 6 MV were $97.2%{\pm}2.3%$, and $99.4%{\pm}1.1%$, respectively while those for 15 MV were $98.5%{\pm}0.85%$ and $99.8%{\pm}0.2%$, respectively. In the case of 2%/2 mm, all mean passing rates were more than 96.0% and 97.2% for 6 MV and 15 MV, respectively, regardless of the virtual phantoms of different materials and dose calculation algorithms. The passing rates in all criteria slightly increased for AXB as well as AAA when using 455 HU rather than polystyrene. Conclusion: The virtual phantom which had a 455 HU values showed high passing rates for all gamma criteria. To guarantee the accuracy of patent-specific VMAT QA, each institution should fine-tune the mass density or HU values of this device.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Ministry of Health & Welfare

References

  1. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med. Phys. 2008;35:310-317.
  2. Park JM, Kim IH, Ye SJ, Kim K. Evaluation of treatment plans using various treatment techniques for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of feet. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2014;15(6):173-187. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i6.4970
  3. Park JM, Kim K, Chie EK, Choi CH, Ye SJ, Ha SW. RapidArc vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative planning study. Br. J. Radiol. 2012;85:e323-329. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/19088580
  4. Park JM, Wu HG, Kim JH, Carlson JN, Kim K. The effect of MLC speed and acceleration on the plan delivery accuracy of VMAT. Br. J. Radiol. 2015;88:20140698. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140698
  5. Jin H, Jesseph FB, Ahmad S. A comparison study of volumetric modulated Arc therapy quality assurances using portal dosimetry and MapCHECK 2. Prog. Med. Phys. 2014;25(2):65-71. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2014.25.2.65
  6. Mattes MD, Lee JC, Elnaiem S, Guirguis A, Ikoro NC, Ashamalla H. A predictive model to guide management of the overlap region between target volume and organs at risk in prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2014;32: 23-30. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2014.32.1.23
  7. Heo T, Ye SJ, Carlson J, Park JM. The effect of beam interruption during VMAT delivery on the delivered dose distribution. Phys. Med. 2015;31:297-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.01.014
  8. Ezzell GA, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med. Phys. 2003;30:2089-115. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1591194
  9. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med. Phys. 1998; 25:656-661. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  10. Fredh A, Scherman JB, Fog LS, Munck RP. Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: A comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med. Phys. 2013;40:031716-1-9. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4788645
  11. Daniel AL, William B, Harms SM, James AP. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med. Phys. 1998; 25:656-661. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  12. Steers JM, Fraass BA. IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity. Med. Phys. 2016;43:1982-1994. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4943953
  13. Ezzell GA, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med. Phys. 2009;36:5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  14. Jursinic PA, Sharma R, Reuter J. MapCHECK used for rotational IMRT measurements: Step-and-shoot, TomoTherapy, RapidArc. Med. Phys. 2010;37:2837-2846. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3431994
  15. Kozelka J, Robinson J, Nelms B, Zhang G, Savitskij D, Feygelman V. Optimizing the accuracy of a helical diode array dosimeter: A comprehensive calibration methodology coupled with a novel virtual inclinometer. Med. Phys. 2011;38:5021-5032. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3622823
  16. Borgers C. Complexity of Monte Carlo and deterministic dose-calculation methods. Phys. Med. Biol. 1998;43:517-528. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/43/3/004
  17. Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, McGhee J, Failla G, Salehpour MR, Mourtada F. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys. Med. Biol. 2010;55:581-598. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/3/002
  18. Xing L, Curran B, Hill R, Holmes T, Ma L, Forster KM, Boyer AL. Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system. Phys. Med. Biol. 1999;44:463-478. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/44/2/013
  19. Jursinic PA, Nelms BE. A 2-D diode array and analysis software for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery. Med. Phys. 2003;30:870-879. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1567831
  20. Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, Vanetti E, Cozzi L. Accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation for small fields with reference to RapidArc stereotactic treatments. Med phys. 2011;38: 6228-6237. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3654739
  21. Kim JI, Park SY, Kim HJ, Kim JH, Ye SJ, Park JM. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat. Oncol. 2014;9:167-1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-167
  22. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W. On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med. Phys. 2013;40:031702-1-12. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4789580
  23. Skrzyriski W, Zielinska-Dabrowska S, Wachowicz M, Slusarczyk-Kacprzyk W, Kukolowicz PF, Bulski W. Computed tomography as a source of electron density infromation for radiation treatment planning. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2010;86:327-333.

Cited by

  1. Validation of new transmission detector transmission factors for online dosimetry: an experimental study vol.13, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1106-y