Comparison of individual and composite field analysis using array detector for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy dose verification

Abstract

The individual and composite field measurements showed good agreement with TPS calculated dose distribution for the studied patients. The measurement and data analysis for individual fields is a time consuming process, the composite field analysis may be sufficient enough for smaller field dose distribution analysis with array detectors.

Whole brain radiotherapy: Consequences for personalized medicine

“…precise stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), or WBRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to BM using volumetric modulated arc therapy delivered by helical tomotherapy or by linear accelerators (Rapid Arc, IMAT/VMAT therapy). 7 Thus, also because of this technical limitation, WBRT remains the most commonly radiotherapy method used in the treatment of patients with brain metastases. When considering the best specific type of treatment it is important to compare all its pros and cons.…”

A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy

“…Measured dose plane in the phantom is then compared against the calculated dose using gamma evaluation first introduced by Low et al 4 Various detectors have been studied for IMRT and VMAT patient specific quality assurance. [5][6][7][8][9] Technological advancements have led to the use of new 3D dosimeters and metrics for patient specific QA. Such 3D gamma metric extends analysis into a third-dimensional axis, thereby providing full volumetric gamma assessment as an alternative to a single plane 2D gamma analysis.…”

Preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a comparative study of quality control adherence at two cancer hospitals in Spain and Poland

“…Although the routine use of in vivo dosimetry to prevent dosing errors may seem to be an obvious quality control measure, many centres do not use it. At present, in vivo dosimetry is not considered standard because there are doubts about its costs, time requirements, and clinical role, particularly in certain cancer localizations 25–27. For this reason, many centers prefer not to use it for routine procedures, especially because modern linear accelerators are believed to be more reliable and accurate than older ones.…”

“…At present, in vivo dosimetry is not considered standard because there are doubts about its costs, time requirements, and clinical role, particularly in certain cancer localizations. 25 – 27 For this reason, many centers prefer not to use it for routine procedures, especially because modern linear accelerators are believed to be more reliable and accurate than older ones. However, several authors continue to insist on the importance of in vivo dosimetry, notably Williams and McKenzie, who wrote an impassioned plea for its generalized use.…”