Patient Specific Qa for 54 Clinical Rapidarc Plans, a Retrospective Evaluation

Hoffmans, D.; Verbakel, W.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(12)72646-4

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the present results are comparable with the summaries provided by other groups using different and independent dosimetric tools [12][13][14]. This observation proves that the machine delivers what it is instructed.…”

Section: Quality Assurance Of Rapidarc Treatments In Clinical Practicesupporting

confidence: 89%

“…From a different perspective, investigations have been performed to analyse the performance and appropriateness of different detectors [10] and to expand those RapidArc QA methods developed primarily for static beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) [11]. Some studies have also addressed the issue of pre-treatment verification on specific treatment sites [6,8,[12][13][14]. All studies confirmed a good agreement between the dose distribution computed for RapidArc and the actual delivery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry

Fogliata¹,

Clivio²,

Fénoglietto³

et al. 2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Quality assurance data from five centres were analysed to assess the reliability of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery in terms of machine and dosimetric performance. Methods: A large group of patients was treated with RapidArc radiotherapy and treatment data recorded. Machine quality assurance was performed according to Ling et al (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:575-81). In addition, treatment to a typical clinical case was delivered biweekly as a constancy check. Pre-treatment dosimetric validation of plan delivery was performed for each patient. All measurements and computations were performed at the depth of the maximum dose in water according to the GLAaS method using electronic portal imaging device measurements. Evaluation was carried out according to a gamma agreement index (GAI, the percentage of field area passing the test); the threshold dose difference was 3% and the threshold distance to agreement was 3 mm. Results: A total of 275 patients (395 arcs) were included in the study. Mean delivery parameters were 31.0¡20.0 u (collimator angle), 4.7¡0.5 u s -1 (gantry speed), 343¡134 MU min -1 (dose rate) and 1.6¡1.4 min (beam-on time) for prescription doses ranging from 1.8 to 16.7 Gy/fraction. Mean deviations from the baseline dose rate and gantry speed ranged from 20.61% to 1.75%. Mean deviations from the baseline for leaf speed variation ranged from 20.73% to 0.41%. The mean GAI of repeated clinical fields was 99.2¡0.2%. GAI varied from 84.7% to 100%; the mean across all patients was 97.1¡2.4%. Conclusion: RapidArc can provide a reliable and accurate delivery of radiotherapy for a variety of clinical conditions.

show abstract

Section: Quality Assurance Of Rapidarc Treatments In Clinical Practicesupporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry

Fogliata¹,

Clivio²,

Fénoglietto³

et al. 2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies of the dosimetric accuracy of RapidArc plans generally revealed good agreement between calculations and measurements. [10][11][12][13] This is partly because of most patient's specific QA is performed in a homogeneous phantom, even when the plans are meant to deliver dose to heterogeneous media such as lung cases. In addition, higher spatial dose modulations with steep dose gradients have been measured using film dosimetry than those predicted by AAA calculations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, higher spatial dose modulations with steep dose gradients have been measured using film dosimetry than those predicted by AAA calculations. 10,13 In a typical RapidArc plan, the field segments generated by the MLC comprise of different apertures including single opened/closed isolated leaves pairs, and disconnected small MLC segments. In some complex RapidArc plans that generate steep dose gradients, 14,15 the optimizer is likely to generate more small MLC segments, which is associated with a higher number of monitor units (MU).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the calculation resolution of AAA for small fields and RapidArc treatment plans

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AAA10 improves the accuracy of dose calculations, and calculation grid of 1.0 mm is superior to using 2.5 mm, although calculation times increased by factor of 5. A suitable upper MU constraint should be assigned during optimization to avoid plans with high modulation. For plans with a relative high number of monitor units, calculations using 1 mm grid resolution are recommended. For planning target volume (PTV) which contains relatively large area of low density tissue, users should be aware of possible dose underestimation in the low density region and recalculation with AAA10 grid 1.0 mm is recommended.

show abstract

Patient Specific Qa for 54 Clinical Rapidarc Plans, a Retrospective Evaluation

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry

Quality assurance of RapidArc in clinical practice using portal dosimetry

Impact of the calculation resolution of AAA for small fields and RapidArc treatment plans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About