• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.317-325
• /
• 2012

The Varian PORTALVISION (Varian Medical Systems, US) shows significant overresponses as the off-center distance increases compared to the predicted dose. In order to correct the dose discrepancy, the off-axis correction is applied to VARIAN iX linear accelerators. The portal dose for $38{\times}28cm^2$ open field is acquired for 6 MV, 15 MV photon beams and also are predicted by PDIP algorithm under the same condition of the portal dose acquisition. The off-axis correction is applied by modifying the $40{\times}40cm^2$ diagonal beam profile data which is used for the beam profile calibration. The ratios between predicted dose and measured dose is modeled as a function of off-axis distance with the $4^{th}$ polynomial and is applied to the $40{\times}40cm^2$ diagonal beam profile data as the weight to correct measured dose by EPID detector. The discrepancy between measured dose and predicted dose is reduced from $4.17{\pm}2.76$ CU to $0.18{\pm}0.8$ CU for 6 MV photon beam and from $3.23{\pm}2.59$ CU to $0.04{\pm}0.85$ CU for 15 MV photon beam. The passing rate of gamma analysis for the pyramid fluence patten with the 4%, 4 mm criteria is improved from 98.7% to 99.1% for 6 MV photon beam, from 99.8% to 99.9% for 15 MV photon beam. IMRT QA is also performed for randomly selected Head and Neck and Prostate IMRT plans after applying the off-axis correction. The gamma passing rare is improved by 3% on average, for Head and Neck cases: $94.7{\pm}3.2%$ to $98.2{\pm}1.4%$, for Prostate cases: $95.5{\pm}2.6%$, $98.4{\pm}1.8%$. The gamma analysis criteria is 3%, 3 mm with 10% threshold. It is considered that the off-axis correction might be an effective and easily adaptable means for correcting the discrepancy between measured dose and predicted dose for IMRT QA using EPID in clinic.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.

• 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.29 no.1
• /
• pp.8-15
• /
• 2018

This work reports the acceptance testing and commissioning experience of the Robotic Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) M6 system with a newly released $InCise^{TM}2$ Multileaf Collimator (MLC) installed at the Yonsei Cancer Center. Acceptance testing included a mechanical interdigitation test, leaf positional accuracy, leakage check, and End-to-End (E2E) tests. Beam data measurements included tissue-phantom ratios (TPRs), off-center ratios (OCRs), output factors collected at 11 field sizes (the smallest field size was $7.6mm{\times}7.7mm$ and largest field size was $115.0mm{\times}100.1mm$ at 800 mm source-to-axis distance), and open beam profiles. The beam model was verified by checking patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in four fiducial-inserted phantoms, using 10 intracranial and extracranial patient plans. All measurements for acceptance testing satisfied manufacturing specifications. Mean leaf position offsets using the Garden Fence test were found to be $0.01{\pm}0.06mm$ and $0.07{\pm}0.05mm$ for X1 and X2 leaf banks, respectively. Maximum and average leaf leakages were 0.20% and 0.18%, respectively. E2E tests for five tracking modes showed 0.26 mm (6D Skull), 0.3 mm (Fiducial), 0.26 mm (Xsight Spine), 0.62 mm (Xsight Lung), and 0.6 mm (Synchrony). TPRs, OCRs, output factors, and open beams measured under various conditions agreed with composite data provided from the manufacturer to within 2%. Patient-specific QA results were evaluated in two ways. Point dose measurements with an ion chamber were all within the 5% absolute-dose agreement, and relative-dose measurements using an array ion chamber detector all satisfied the 3%/3 mm gamma criterion for more than 90% of the measurement points. The Robotic IMRT M6 system equipped with the $InCise^{TM}2$ MLC was proven to be accurate and reliable.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.54-60
• /
• 2017

This study was designed to measure transit dose with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in eight patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and to verify the accuracy of dose delivery to patients. The calculated dose map of the treatment planning system (TPS) was compared with the EPID based dose measured on the same plane with a gamma index method. The plan for each patient was verified prior to treatment with a diode array (MapCHECK) and portal dose image prediction (PDIP). To simulate possible patient positioning errors during treatment, outcomes were evaluated after an anthropomorphic phantom was displaced 5 and 10 mm in various directions. Based on 3%/3 mm criteria, the $mean{\pm}SD$ passing rates of MapCHECK, PDIP (pre-treatment QA) for 47 IMRT were $99.8{\pm}0.1%$, $99.0{\pm}0.7%$, and, respectively. Besides, passing rates using transit dosimetry was $90.0{\pm}1.5%$ for the same condition. Setup errors of 5 and 10 mm reduced the mean passing rates by 1.3% and 3.0% (inferior to superior), 2.2% and 4.3% (superior to inferior), 5.9% and 10.9% (left to right), and 8.9% and 16.3% (right to left), respectively. These findings suggest that the transit dose-based IMRT verification method using EPID, in which the transit dose from patients is compared with the dose map calculated from the TPS, may be useful in verifying various errors including setup and/or patient positioning error, inhomogeneity and target motions.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.164-171
• /
• 2008

One of the most important task in commissioning intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) into a clinic is the characterization of dosimetry performance under small monitor unit delivery conditions. In this study, method of evaluating dose monitor linearity, beam flatness and symmetry, and MLC positioning accuracy using a diode array is investigated. Siemens Primus linear accelerator (LA) with 6 and 10 MV x-rays was used to deliver radiation and the characteristics were measured using a multi array diodes. Monitor unit stabilities were measured for both x-ray energies. The dose linearity errors for the 6 MV x-ray were 2.1, 3.4, 6.9, 8.6, and 15.4 % when 20 MU, 10 MU, 5 MU, 4 MU, and 2 MU was delivered, respectively. Greater errors were observed for 10 MV x-rays with a maximum of 22% when 2 MU was delivered. These errors were corrected by adjusting D1_C0 values and reduced to less than 2% in all cases. The beam flatness and symmetry were appropriate without any correction. The picket fence test performed using diode array and film measurement showed similar results. The use of diode array is a convenient method in characterizing beam stability, symmetry and flatness, and positioning accuracy of MLC for IMRT commissioning. In addition, adjustment of D1-C0 value must be performed when a Siemens LA is used for IMRT because factory value usually gives unacceptable beam stability error when the MU/segment is smaller than 20.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.168-177
• /
• 2015

For evaluating the treatment planning accurately, the quality assurance for treatment planning is recommended when patients were treated with IMRT which is complex and delicate. To realize this purpose, treatment plan quality assurance software can be used to verify the delivered dose accurately before and after of treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plan quality assurance software for each IMRT plan according to MLC DLG (dosimetric leaf gap). Novalis Tx with a built-in HD120 MLC was used in this study to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx. To establish IMRT plan, Eclipse RTP system was used and target and organ structures (multi-target, mock prostate, mock head/neck, C-shape case) were contoured in I'mRT phantom. To verify the difference of dose distribution according to DLG, MLC dynalog files were imported to MobiusFx software and changed the DLG (0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 mm) values in MobiusFx. For evaluation dose, dose distribution was evaluated by using 3D gamma index for the gamma criteria 3% and distance to agreement 3 mm, and the point dose was acquired by using the CC13 ionization chamber in isocenter of I'mRT phantom. In the result for point dose, the mock head/neck and multi-target had difference about 4% and 3% in DLG 0.5 and 0.7 mm respectively, and the other DLGs had difference less than 3%. The gamma index passing-rate of mock head/neck were below 81% for PTV and cord, and multi-target were below 30% for center and superior target in DLGs 0.5, 0.7 mm, however, inferior target of multi-target case and parotid of mock head/neck case had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. The point dose of mock prostate showed difference below 3.0% in all DLGs, however, the passing rate of PTV were below 95% in 0.5, 0.7 mm DLGs, and the other DLGs were above 98%. The rectum and bladder had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. As the difference of point dose in C-shape were 3~9% except for 1.3 mm DLG, the passing rate of PTV in 1.0 1.3 mm were 96.7, 93.0% respectively. However, passing rate of the other DLGs were below 86% and core was 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. In this study, we verified that the accuracy of treatment planning QA system can be affected by DLG values. For precise quality assurance for treatment technique using the MLC motion like IMRT and VMAT, we should use appropriate DLG value in linear accelerator and RTP system.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2011

In this study, we evaluated the effect of grid size on dose calculation accuracy using 2 head & neck and 2 prostate IMRT cases and based on this study's findings, we also evaluated the efficiency of a 2D diode array detector for IMRT quality assurance. Dose distributions of four IMRT plan data were calculated at four calculation grid sizes (1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 mm) and the calculated dose distributions were compared with measured dose distributions using 2D diode array detector. Although there was no obvious difference in pass rate of gamma analysis with 3 mm/3% acceptance criteria for the others except 10 mm grid size, we found that the pass rates of 2.5, 5 and 10 mm grid size were decreased 5%, 20% and 31.53% respectively according to the application of the fine acceptance criteria, 3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2% and 1 mm/1%. The calculation time were about 11.5 min, 4.77 min, 2.95 min, and 11.5 min at 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 mm, respectively and as the grid size increased to double, the calculation time decreased about one-half. The grid size effect was observed more clearly in the high gradient area than the low gradient area. In conclusion, 2.5 mm grid size is considered acceptable for most IMRT plans but at least in the high gradient area, 1.25 mm grid size is required to accurately predict the dose distribution. These results are exactly same as the precious studies' results and theory. So we confirmed that 2D array diode detector was suitable for the IMRT QA.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.151-160
• /
• 2003

The application of more complex radiotherapy techniques using multileaf collimation (MLC), such as 3D conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), has increased the significance of verifying leaf position and motion. Due to thier reliability and empirical robustness, quality assurance (QA) of MLC. However easy use and the ability to provide digital data of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have attracted attention to portal films as an alternatives to films for routine qualify assurance, despite concerns about their clinical feasibility, efficacy, and the cost to benefit ratio. In this study, we developed method for daily QA of MLC using electronic portal images (EPIs). EPID availability for routine QA was verified by comparing of the portal films, which were simultaneously obtained when radiation was delivered and known prescription input to MLC controller. Specially designed two-test patterns of dynamic MLC were applied for image acquisition. Quantitative off-line analysis using an edge detection algorithm enhanced the verification procedure as well as on-line qualitative visual assessment. In conclusion, the availability of EPI was enough for daily QA of MLC leaf position with the accuracy of portal films.