Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Treatment Plan Delivery Accuracy of the ViewRay System in Two-Headed Mode

  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, So-Yeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Wu, Hong-Gyun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2016.09.22
  • Accepted : 2016.09.24
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the delivery accuracy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in the two-headed mode of the ViewRay$^{TM}$ system in comparison with that of the normal operation treatment plan of the machine. For this study, a total of eight IMRT plans and corresponding verification plans were generated (four head and neck, two liver, and two prostate IMRT plans). The delivered dose distributions were measured using ArcCHECK$^{TM}$ with the insertion of an ionization chamber. We measured the delivered dose distributions in three-headed mode (normal operation of the machine), two-headed mode with head 1 disabled, two-headed mode with head 2 disabled, and two-headed mode with head 3 disabled. Therefore, a total of four measurements were performed for each IMRT plan. The global gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm) in three-headed mode, head 1 disabled, head 2 disabled, and head 3 disabled were $99.9{\pm}0.1%$, $99.8{\pm}0.3%$, $99.6{\pm}0.7%$, and $99.7{\pm}0.4%$, respectively. The difference in the gamma passing rates of the three- and two-headed modes was insignificant. With 2%/2 mm, the rates were $96.6{\pm}3.6%$, $97.2{\pm}3.5%$, $95.7{\pm}6.2%$, and $95.5{\pm}4.3%$, respectively. Between three-headed mode and head 3 disabled, a statistically significant difference was observed with a p-value of 0.02; however, the difference was minimal (1.1%). The chamber readings showed differences of approximately 1% between three- and two-headed modes, which were minimal. Therefore, the treatment plan delivery in the two-headed mode of the ViewRay$^{TM}$ system seems accurate and robust.

Keywords

References

  1. Mera Iglesias M, Aramburu Nunez D, Del Olmo Claudio JL, et al: Multimodality functional imaging in radiation therapy planning: relationships between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, and 18F-FDG PET. Comput Math Methods Med 2015:103843 (2015)
  2. Ghose S, Mitra J, Rivest-Henault D, et al: MRI-alone radiation therapy planning for prostate cancer: Automatic fiducial marker detection. Med Phys 43(5):2218 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4944871
  3. Sun J, Dowling J, Pichler P, et al: MRI simulation: end-toend testing for prostate radiation therapy using geometric pelvic MRI phantoms. Phys Med Biol 60(8):3097-109 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/3097
  4. Ireland RH, Woodhouse N, Hoggard N, et al: An image acquisition and registration strategy for the fusion of hyperpolarized helium-3 MRI and x-ray CT images of the lung. Phys Med Biol 53(21):6055-63 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/21/011
  5. Sarkar A, Santiago RJ, Smith R, et al: Comparison of manual vs. automated multimodality (CT-MRI) image registration for brain tumors. Med Dosim 30(1):20-4 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2004.10.004
  6. Mutic S, Dempsey JF: The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 24(3):196-9 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.008
  7. Park JM, Park S, Wu H, et al: Commissioning experience of tri-cobalt-60 MRI-guided radiation therapy system. Prog Med Phys 26(4):193-200 (2015) https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.4.193
  8. Wooten HO, Green O, Yang M, et al: Quality of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans Using a 60Co Magnetic Resonance Image Guidance Radiation Therapy System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92(4):771-8 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.057
  9. Wooten HO, Rodriguez V, Green O, et al: Benchmark IMRT evaluation of a Co-60 MRI-guided radiation therapy system. Radiother Oncol 114(3):402-5 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.015
  10. Park JM, Park SY, Kim HJ, et al: A comparative planning study for lung SABR between tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiother Oncol 120(2):279-85 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.013
  11. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al: A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25(5):656-61 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  12. Fredh A, Scherman JB, Fog LS, et al: Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med Phys 40(3):031716 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4788645
  13. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W: On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys. 40(3):031702 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4789580

Cited by

  1. Evaluations of the setup discrepancy between BrainLAB 6D ExacTrac and cone-beam computed tomography used with the imaging guidance system Novalis-Tx for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery vol.12, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177798