Clinical implementation and error sensitivity of a 3D quality assurance protocol for prostate and thoracic IMRT

Gueorguiev, G; Cotter, Christopher R.; Turcotte, J; Crawford, B; Sharp, G; Mahd, Mufeed

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5392

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current results could not be compared to the study by Gueorguiev et al [34] due to the MLC errors introduced in that study being for a single leaf, and 1-3 leaf pairs rather than the whole bank. The magnitude of the collimator errors (5° and 10°) and gantry angle errors (5°a nd 15°) also differed substantially in magnitude to the errors introduced in this study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…This may be related to the elongated shape of the dose distribution for the plan and the fact that the ArcCHECK data was for a composite measurement rather than field-by-field. Previous studies which compared detectors assessed different devices: the COMPASS system, MatriXX and single ion chamber measurements [34]; and radiochromic film and the MapCHECK diode array [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yan et al [33] found that both radiochromic film and the MapCHECK diode array could only detect systematic MLC position errors of around 2 mm and above when a 3%/3 mm criteria were applied. Gueorguiev et al [34] assessed the ability of three dosimeters to identify errors which were introduced in energy, MLC and jaw position, MU, and collimator and gantry angle. The COMPASS system, which is a gantry mounted 2D array where the measured data is used to compute the dose on a patient CT, identified the most errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in Step-and-Shoot IMRT plans

Gray

Bawazeer

Arumugam

et al. 2021

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in Step-and-Shoot IMRT plans

Gray

Bawazeer

Arumugam

et al. 2021

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Gueorguiev et al . compared the sensitivity of the results acquired using the COMPASS TM system to the point dose measurements and 2D gamma evaluations for IMRT [ 28 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation analysis between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations for both intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy

Kim

Choi

et al. 2016

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to investigate correlations between 2D and quasi-3D gamma passing rates. A total of 20 patients (10 prostate cases and 10 head and neck cases, H&N) were retrospectively selected. For each patient, both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated. For each plan, 2D gamma evaluation with radiochromic films and quasi-3D gamma evaluation with fluence measurements were performed with both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Gamma passing rates were grouped together according to delivery techniques and treatment sites. Statistical analyses were performed to examine the correlation between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations. Statistically significant difference was observed between delivery techniques only in the quasi-3D gamma passing rates with 2%/2 mm. Statistically significant differences were observed between treatment sites in the 2D gamma passing rates (differences of less than 8%). No statistically significant correlations were observed between 2D and quasi-3D gamma passing rates except the VMAT group and the group including both IMRT and VMAT with 3%/3 mm (r = 0.564 with p = 0.012 for theVMAT group and r = 0.372 with p = 0.020 for the group including both IMRT and VMAT), however, those were not strong. No strong correlations were observed between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations.

show abstract

“…As treatment plans become more complex, MLC positioning accuracy increases in importance (23), and patient-specific verification is more important for the safe delivery of radiation therapy. Several studies have considered the evaluation of ROI settings to improve error detectability in verification using a three-dimensional verification system (24,25). To our knowledge, however, the present study is the first to directly evaluate isodose volume and error detectability in detail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Error Detectability of Isodose Volumes as ROIs in Prostate Intensity-modulated RT QA

Nakahara

Takaki

Tanooka

et al. 2022

In Vivo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: To evaluate the quality of error detectability with a three-dimensional verification system using isodose volumes as regions of interest (ROIs) in quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Patients and Methods: Treatment plans with four types of intentional errors were created from the data of 20 patients with localized prostate cancer. These plans underwent QA using the three-dimensional verification system. The datasets of another 30 cases without inserted errors were assessed as controls. The ROIs used in the evaluations were those used in our conventional method (planning target volume, rectum, and bladder). The isodose volume method (5%, 50% and 95% isodose volume) and the error detection rates (measurement above the tolerance values, as set from the other 30 cases) were assessed and compared. Results: There was significantly higher multileaf collimator systematic closed error detectability with the isodose volume method compared to the conventional method (A-side 0.2 mm: p=0.005, A-side 0.35 mm: p=0.002, B-side 0.2 mm: p=0.001 and B-side 0.35 mm: p=0.010). There were no error types for which the error detection rate of the isodose volume method was lower than that of the conventional method. Conclusion: The isodose volume method was able to evaluate the irradiated ROIs that could be delineated, and improved error detectability. This method has the potential to provide a wider margin of safety in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an irradiation technique that can create a steep dose gradient to deliver a high dose to the target while avoiding normal tissue (1, 2). Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an IMRT technique that uses a dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) and varies the dose rate while rotating the gantry to rapidly deliver IMRT (3,4). In order to ensure safe delivery of VMAT, it is recommended that each treatment plan created by a treatment planning system (TPS) be verified to detect inherent errors and to verify dose accuracy (5). The IMRT verification methods include absolute dose verification using a dosimeter (6) and dose distribution verification using a two-dimensional detector or radiochromic film (7-11). In absolute dose verification, a phantom is used in a three-dimensional treatment plan. The absolute dose is verified by comparing the results calculated with the phantom's CT scan data with those doses measured using the phantom and a dosimeter. The verification of dose distribution is evaluated comparing distribution recalculated by the TPS with those obtained using radiochromic film or twodimensional detectors. A gamma analysis is often used as the evaluation method (12-14).A recently developed three-dimensional dose verification system can predict the dose distribution in the patient body from the phantom measurement results obtained using a twodimensional detector (15,16). It can be evaluated using a dose volume histogram (DVH), which can predict the dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs)...

show abstract

Clinical implementation and error sensitivity of a 3D quality assurance protocol for prostate and thoracic IMRT

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in Step-and-Shoot IMRT plans

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in Step-and-Shoot IMRT plans

Correlation analysis between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations for both intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy

Error Detectability of Isodose Volumes as ROIs in Prostate Intensity-modulated RT QA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About