• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.108-115
• /
• 2022

Background: This study was aimed at comparing and analyzing the results of FractionLab (Varian/Mobius Medical System) with those of portal dosimetry that uses an electronic portal imaging device. Portal dosimetry is extensively used for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: The study includes 29 patients who underwent IMRT on a Novalis-Tx linear accelerator (Varian Medical System and Brain-LAB) between June 2019 and March 2021. We analyzed the multileaf collimator DynaLog files generated after portal dosimetry to evaluate the same condition using FractionLab. The results of the recently launched FractionLab at various gamma indices (0.1%/0.1 mm-1%/1 mm) are analyzed and compared with those of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm). Results: The average gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) and FractionLab are 98.1% (95.5%-100%) and 97.5% (92.3%-99.7%) at 0.6%/0.6 mm, respectively. The results of portal dosimetry (3%/3 mm) are statistically comparable with the QA results of FractionLab (0.6%/0.6 mm-0.9%/0.9 mm). Conclusion: This paper presents the clinical performance of FractionLab by the comparison of the QA results of FractionLab using portal dosimetry with various gamma indexes when performing patient-specific QA in IMRT treatment. Further, the appropriate gamma index when performing patient-specific QA with FractionLab is provided.

• 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.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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.15-21
• /
• 2023

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and portal dose image prediction (PDIP) for patient-specific quality assurance based on electronic portal imaging device, and to evaluate the clinical feasibility of portal dosimetry using AAA. Subjects and methods: We retrospectively selected a total of 32 patients, including 15 lung cancer patients and 17 liver cancer patients. Verification plans were generated using PDIP and AAA. We obtained gamma passing rates by comparing the calculated distribution with the measured distribution and obtained MLC positional difference values. Results: The mean gamma passing rate for lung cancer patients was 99.5% ± 1.1% for 3%/3 mm using PDIP and 90.6% ± 5.8% for 1%/1 mm. Using AAA, the mean gamma passing rate was 98.9% ± 1.7% for 3%/3 mm and 87.8% ± 5.2% for 1%/1 mm. The mean gamma passing rate for liver cancer patients was 99.9% ± 0.3% for 3%/3 mm using PDIP and 96.6% ± 4.6% for 1%/1 mm. Using AAA, the mean gamma passing rate was 99.6% ± 0.5% for 3%/3 mm and 89.5% ± 6.4% for 1%/1 mm. The MLC positional difference was small at 0.013 mm ± 0.002 mm and showed no correlation with the gamma passing rate. Conclusion: The AAA algorithm can be clinically used as a portal dosimetry calculation algorithm for patientspecific quality assurance based on electronic portal imaging device.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.57-67
• /
• 2013

Purpose: Replacing the film which used to be used for checking the set-up of the patient and dosimetry during radiation therapy, more and more EPID equipped devices are in use at present. Accordingly, this article tried to evaluated the accuracy of the position check-up and the usefulness of dosimetry during the use of an electronic portal imaging device. Materials and Methods: On 50 materials acquired with the search of Korea Society Radiotherapeutic Technology, The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology, and Pubmed using "EPID", "Portal dosimetry", "Portal image", "Dose verification", "Quality control", "Cine mode", "Quality - assurance", and "In vivo dosimetry" as indexes, the usefulness of EPID was analyzed by classifying them as history of EPID and dosimetry, set-up verification and characteristics of EPID. Results: EPID is developed from the first generation of Liquid-filled ionization chamber, through the second generation of Camera-based fluoroscopy, and to the third generation of Amorphous-silicon EPID imaging modes can be divided into EPID mode, Cine mode and Integrated mode. When evaluating absolute dose accuracy of films and EPID, it was found that EPID showed within 1% and EDR2 film showed within 3% errors. It was confirmed that EPID is better in error measurement accuracy than film. When gamma analyzing the dose distribution of the base exposure plane which was calculated from therapy planning system, and planes calculated by EDR2 film and EPID, both film and EPID showed less than 2% of pixels which exceeded 1 at gamma values (r%>1) with in the thresholds such as 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm respectively. For the time needed for full course QA in IMRT to compare loads, EDR2 film recorded approximately 110 minutes, and EPID recorded approximately 55 minutes. Conclusion: EPID could easily replace conventional complicated and troublesome film and ionization chamber which used to be used for dosimetry and set-up verification, and it was proved to be very efficient and accurate dosimetry device in quality assurance of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy). As cine mode imaging using EPID allows locating tumors in real-time without additional dose in lung and liver which are mobile according to movements of diaphragm and in rectal cancer patients who have unstable position, it may help to implement the most optimal radiotherapy for patients.

• 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.

• 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.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.249-255
• /
• 1999

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to investigate fundamental aspects of the dose response of fluorescent screen-based electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDS). Materials and Methods : We acquired scanned signal across portal planes as we varied the radiation that entered the EPID by changing the thickness and anatomy of the phantom as well as the air gap between the phantom and the EPID. In addition, we simulated the relative contribution of the scintillation light signal in the EPID system. Results : We have shown that the dose profile across portal planes is a function of the air gap and phantom thickness. We have also found that depending on the density change within the phantom geometry, errors associated with dose response based on the EPID scan can be as high as $7\%$. We also found that scintillation light scattering within the EPID system is an important source of error. Conclusion : This study revealed and demonstrated fundamental characteristics of dose response of EPID, as relative to that of ion chambers. This study showed that EPID based on fluorescent screen cannot be an accurate dosimetry system.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.16-21
• /
• 1999

Purpose : The aim of this study is to conform the possibility of the liquid type EPID as a QC tools to clinical indication and of replacement of the film dosimetry. Aditional aim is to describe a procedure for the use of a EPID as a physics calibration tool in the measurements of radiation beam parameters which are typically carried out with film. Method & Materials : In this study we used the Clinac 2100c/d with EPID. This system contains 65536 liquid-filled ion chambers arranged in a $256{\times}256$ matrix and the imaging area is $32.5{\times}32.5cm$ with liquid layer thickness of 1mm. The EPID was tested for different field sizes under typical clinical conditions and pixel values were calibrated against dose by producing images using various thickness of lead attenuators(lead step wedge) using 6 & 10MV x-ray. We placed various thickness of lead on the table of linear accelerator and set the portal vision an SDD of 100cm. To acquire portal image we change the field size and energy, and we recorded the average pixel value in a $3{\times}3$ pixel region of interest(ROI) at field center was recorded. The pixel values were also measured for different field sizes in order to evaluate the dependence of pixel value on x-ray energy spectrum and various scatter components. Result : The EPID, as a whole, was useful as a QA tool and dosimetry device. In mechanical check, cross-hair centering was well matched and the error was less than ?2mm and light/radiation field coincidence was less than 1mm also. In portal dosimetry the wider the field size the the higher the pixel value and as the lead thickness increase, the pixel value was exponentially decreased. Conclusions : The EPID was very suitable for QA tools and it can be used to measure exit dose during patients treatment with reasonable accuracy. But when indicate the EPID to clincal study deep consideration required