• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.91-102
• /
• 2009

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, a 2D ionization chamber array (MatriXX) and an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in the pre-treatment QA of IMRT. Materials and Methods: Fluence patterns, shaped as a wedge with 10 steps (segments) by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC), of reference and test IMRT fields were measured using EDR2 film, the MatriXX, and EPID. Test fields were designed to simulate leaf positioning errors. The absolute dose at a point in each step of the reference fields was measured in a water phantom with an ionization chamber and was compared to the dose obtained with the use of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID. For qualitative analysis, all measured fluence patterns of both reference and test fields were compared with calculated dose maps from a radiation treatment planning system (Pinnacle, Philips, USA) using profiles and $\gamma$ evaluation with 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. By measurement of the time to perform QA, we compared the workload of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID. Results: The percent absolute dose difference between the measured and ionization chamber dose was within 1% for the EPID, 2% for the MatriXX and 3% for EDR2 film. The percentage of pixels with $\gamma$%>1 for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria was within 2% for use of both EDR2 film and the EPID. However, differences for the use of the MatriXX were seen with a maximum difference as great as 5.94% with the 2%/2 mm criteria. For the test fields, EDR2 film and EPID could detect leaf-positioning errors on the order of -3 mm and -2 mm, respectively. However it was difficult to differentiate leaf-positioning errors with the MatriXX due to its poor resolution. The approximate time to perform QA was 110 minutes for the use of EDR2 film, 80 minutes for the use of the MatriXX and approximately 55 minutes for the use of the EPID. Conclusion: This study has evaluated the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID in the pre-treatment verification of IMRT. EDR2 film and the EPID showed better performance for accuracy, while the use of the MatriXX significantly reduced measurement and analysis times. We propose practical and useful methods to establish an effective QA system in a clinical environment.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.183-188
• /
• 2008

Aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of 2D ion chamber array as a substitute of the water phantom system in a periodic Linac QA. For the feasibility study, a commercial ion chamber matrix was used as a substitute of the water phantom in the measurement for a routine QA beam properties. The device used in this study was the I'm RT MatriXX (Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany). The MatriXX consists of a 1,020 vented ion chamber array, arranged in $24{\times}24\;cm^2$ matrix. Each ion chamber has a volume of $0.08\;cm^3$, spacing of 0.762 cm. We investigated dosimetric parameters such as dose symmetry, energy ($TPR_{20,10}$), and absolute dose for comparing with the water phantom data with a Farmer-type ionization chamber (FC65G, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany). For the MatriXX measurements, we used the white polystyrene phantom (${\rho}:\;1.18\;g/cm^3$) and also considered the intrinsic layer (${\rho}:\;1.06\;g/cm^3$, t: 0.36 cm) of MatriXX to be equivalent to water depth. In the preliminary study of geometrical QA using MatriXX, the rotation axis of collimator and half beam junction test were included and compared with film measurements. Regarding the dosimetrical QA, the MatriXX has shown good agreements within ${\pm}1%$ compared to the water phantom measurements. In the geometrical test, the data from MatriXX were comparable with those from the films. In conclusion, the MatriXX is a good substitute for water phantom system and film measurements. In addition, the results indicate that the MatriXX as a cost-effective novel QA tool to reduce time and personnel power.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.91-97
• /
• 2007

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of a commercial ion chamber array for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) was performed IMRT patient-specific QA Materials and Methods: A use of IMRT patient-specific QA was examined for nasopharyngeal patient by using 6MV photon beams. The MatriXX (Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany) was used for IMRT QA. The case of nasopharyngeal cancer was performed inverse treatment planning. A hybrid dose distribution made on the CT data of MatriXX and solid phantom all of the same gantry angle (0$^\circ$). The measurement was acquired with geometrical condition that equal to hybrid treatment planning. The $\gamma$-index (dose difference 3%, DTA 3 mm) histogram was used for quantitative analysis of dose discrepancies. An absolute dose was compared at the high dose low gradient region. Results: The dose distribution was shown a good agreement by gamma evaluation. A proportion of acceptance criteria was 95.8%, 97.52%, 96.28%, 98.20%, 97.78%, 96.64% and 92.70% for gantry angles were 0$^\circ$, 55$^\circ$, 110$^\circ$, 140$^\circ$, 220$^\circ$, 250$^\circ$ and 305$^\circ$, respectively. The absolute dose in high dose low gradient region was shown reasonable agreement with the RTP calculation within $\pm$3%. Conclusion: The MatriXX offers the dosimetric characteristics required for performing both relative and absolute measurements. If MatriXX use in the clinic, it could be simplified and reduced the IMRT patient-specific QA workload. Therefore, the MatriXX is evaluated as a reliable and convenient dosimeter for IMRT patient-specific QA.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.131-135
• /
• 2006

A commercial ion chamber matrix was examined the characteristics and its performance for radiotherapy qualify assurance. The device was the I'mRT 2D-MatriXX (Scanditronix-Wellhofer, Schwarzenbruck, Germany). The 2D-MatriXX device consists of a 1020 vented ion chamber array, arranged in $24{\times}24cm^2$ matrix. Each ion chamber has a volume of $0.08cm^3$, spacing of 0.762 cm and minimum sampling time of 20 ms. For the investigation of the characteristics, dose linearity, output factor, short-term reproducibility and dose rate dependency were tested. In the testing of dose linearity. It has shown a good signal linearity within 1% in the range of $1{\sim}800$cGy. Dose rate dependency was found to be lower than 0.4% (Range: 100-600 Mu/min) relative to a dose rate of 300 Mu/min as a reference. Output factors matched very well within 0.5% compared with commissioned beam data using a ionization chamber (CC01, Scanditronix-Wellhofer, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) in the range of field sizes $3{\times}3{\sim}24{\times}24cm^2$. Short-term reproducibility (6 times with a interval of 15 minute) was also shown a good agreement within 0.5%, when the temperature and the pressure were corrected by each time of measurement. in addition, we compared enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW, Varian, Palo Alto, USA) profiles from calculated values in the radiation planning system with those from measurements of the MatriXX. Furthermore, anon-uniform IMRT dose fluence was tested. All the comparison studies have shown good agreements. In this study, the MatriXX was evaluated as a reliable dosimeter, and it could be used as a simplistic and convenient tool for radiotherapy qualify assurance.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.277-282
• /
• 2010

The study is to verify non-uniform dose distribution in Field-In-Field (FIF) technique using two-dimensional ionization chamber (MatriXX, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany) for breast tangential irradiation. The MatriXX and an inverse planning system (Eclipse, ver 6.5, Varian, Palo Alto, USA) were used. Hybrid plans were made from the original twenty patients plans. To verify the non-uniform dose distribution in FIF technique, each portal prescribed doses (90 cGy) was delivered to the MatriXX. The measured doses on the MatriXX were compared to the planned doses. The quantitative analyses were done with a commercial analyzing tool (OmniPro IMRT, ver. 1.4, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany). The delivered doses at the normalization points were different to average 1.6% between the calculated and the measured. In analysis of line profiles, there were some differences of 1.3-5.5% (Avg: 2.4%), 0.9-3.9% (Avg: 2.5%) in longitudinal and transverse planes respectively. For the gamma index (criteria: 3 mm, 3%) analyses, there were shown that 90.23-99.69% (avg: 95.11%, std: 2.81) for acceptable range ($\gamma$-index $\geq$ 1) through the twenty patients cases. In conclusion, through our study, we have confirmed the availability of the FIF technique by comparing the calculated with the measured using MatriXX. In the future, various clinical applications of the FIF techniques would be good trials for better treatment results.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.33-39
• /
• 2010

Purpose: It is very important to confirm conformance of dose distribution that is formed with treatment planning from IMRS or IMRT. It has been a problem dropped accuracy and conformance when the field size is getting smaller because of character of the 2D ion chamber. Verification of MatriXX Phantom dose distribution with a change in the SAD. Dose distribution measurement and analysis to improve the accuracy and should be useful to evaluate the award. Materials and Methods: A use of Novalis linear accelerator 6 MV photon beams. In general, IMRS were 25 patients with small field size. The selected patients were divided into three groups on the basis of the field size. SAD was changed from 80 to 130 cm and field size to determine the dose distribution to the change, each dose was measured using MatriXX Phantom. Analysis of measured values obtained from the program for each patient through the treatment planning system comparison and analysis of the dose distribution and gamma values were expressed. Result: SAD 80, 100, and 120 cm in size in the gamma value to the investigation of patients less than $3\;cm^2$ average 0.939, 0.969, and 0.979, respectively. Patients with more than $5\;cm^2$ 0.962, 0.983, and 0.988, respectively. $5\;cm^2$ or more patients 0.982, 0.990, and 0.992, respectively. Conclusion: The error rate of less than $3\;cm^2$ field size is increased rapidly. If the field size is increased, resolution is increased by 2D ion chambers. It has been approved that it can be credible if it is around $3\;cm^2$ when measuring dose distribution using MatriXX. Adjusting geometric field size by changing SAD is likely to be very useful when you measure dose distribution using MatriXX.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2006.08a
• /
• pp.62-62
• /
• 2006

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.340-347
• /
• 2010

DQA, a patient specific quality assurance in tomotherapy, is usually performed using an ion chamber and a film. The result of DQA is analysed with the treatment planning system called Tomo Planning Station (TomoPS). The two-dimensional dose distribution of film measurement is compared with the dose distribution calculated by TomoPS using the ${\gamma}$-index analysis. In ${\gamma}$-index analysis, the criteria such as 3%/3 mm is used and we verify that whether the rate of number of points which pass the criteria (pass rate) is within tolerance. TomoPS does not provide any quantitative information regarding the pass rate. In this work, a method to get the pass rate of the ${\gamma}$-index analysis was suggested and a software PassRT which calculates the pass rate was developed. The results of patient specific QA of the intensity modulated radiation therapy measured with I'mRT MatriXX (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) and DQA of tomotherapy measured with film were used to verify the proposed method. The pass rate was calculated using PassRT and compared with the pass rate calculated by OmniPro I'mRT (IBA Dosimetry, Germany). The average difference between the two pass rates was 0.00% for the MatriXX measurement. The standard deviation and the maximum difference were 0.02% and 0.02%, respectively. For the film measurement, average difference, standard deviation and maximum difference were 0.00%, 0.02% and 0.02%, respectively. For regions of interest smaller than $24.3{\times}16.6cm^2$ the proposed method can be used to calculate the pass rate of the gamma index analysis to one decimal place and will be helpful for the more accurate DQA in tomotherapy.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.198-203
• /
• 2013

Generally, to evaluate gated radiation therapy, moving phantoms are used to simulate organ motion. Since the target moves in every direction, we need to take into account motion in each direction. This study proposes methods to evaluate gated radiation therapy using gamma index analysis and to visualize adequate gating window sizes according to motion ranges. The moving phantom was fabricated to simulate motion in the craniocaudal direction. This phantom consisted of a moving platform, the I'm MatriXX, and solid water phantoms. A 6 MV photon filed with a field size of $4{\times}4cm^2$ was delivered to the phantom using the gating system, while the phantom moved in the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-cm motion ranges. The gating windows were set at 40~60%, 30~40%, and 0~90%, respectively. The I'm MatriXX acquired the dose distributions for each scenario and the dose distributions were compared with a $4{\times}4cm^2$ static filed. The tolerance of the gamma index was set at 3%/3 mm. The greater the gating window, the lower the pass rate, and the greater the motion range, the lower the pass rate in this study. In case treatment without gated radiation therapy for the target with motion of 2 cm, the pass rate was less than 96%. But it was greater than 99% when gated radiation therapy was used. However gated radiation therapy was used for the target with motion greater than 4 cm, the pass rate could not be greater than 97% when gating window was set as 30~70%. But when the gating window set as 40~60%, the pass rate was greater than 99%.

• 대한방사선방어학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2011.11a
• /
• pp.346-347
• /
• 2011