Clinical introduction of a linac head-mounted 2D detector array based quality assurance system in head and neck IMRT

被引:31
作者
Korevaar, Erik W. [1 ]
Wauben, David J. L. [1 ]
van der Hulst, Peter C. [1 ]
Langendijk, Johannes A. [1 ]
Van't Veld, Aart A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Radiat Oncol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
关键词
IMRT QA; 2D ionization chamber array; Dose reconstruction; Film dosimetry; Gamma index analysis; INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; PIXEL IONIZATION-CHAMBER; MONITOR UNIT SETTINGS; RADIATION-THERAPY; DOSE VERIFICATION; MULTILEAF COLLIMATION; SPATIAL-RESOLUTION; DYNAMIC-MODE; DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.radonc.2011.09.007
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background and purpose: IMRT QA is commonly performed in a phantom geometry but the clinical interpretation of the results in a 2D phantom plane is difficult. The main objective of our work is to move from film measurement based QA to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient CT scan. In principle, this could be achieved using a dose reconstruction method from 2D detector array measurements as available in the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry). The first step in the clinical introduction of this system instead of the currently used film QA procedures is to test the reliability of the dose reconstruction. In this paper we investigated the validation of the method in a homogeneous phantom with the film QA procedure as a reference. We tested whether COMPASS QA results correctly identified treatment plans that did or did not fulfil QA requirements in head and neck (H&N) IMRT. Materials and methods: A total number of 24 treatments were selected from an existing database with more than 100 film based H&N IMRT QA results. The QA results were classified as either good, just acceptable or clinically rejected (mean gamma index <0.4, 0.4-0.5 or >0.5, respectively with 3%/3 mm criteria). Film QA was repeated and compared to COMPASS QA with a MatriXX detector measurement performed on the same day. Results: Good agreement was found between COMPASS reconstructed dose and film measured dose in a phantom (mean gamma 0.83 +/- 0.09, 1SD with 1%/1 mm criteria, 0.33 +/- 0.04 with 3%/3 mm criteria). COMPASS QA results correlated well with film QA, identifying the same patients with less good QA results. Repeated measurements with film and COMPASS showed changes in delivery after a modified MLC calibration, also visible in a standard MLC check in COMPASS. The time required for QA reduced by half by using COMPASS instead of film. Conclusions: Agreement of COMPASS QA results with film based QA supports its clinical introduction for a phantom geometry. A standard MLC calibration check is sensitive to <1 mm changes that could be significant in H&N IMRT. These findings offer opportunities to further investigate the method based on a 2D detector array to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient anatomy. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 100 (2011) 446-452
引用
收藏
页码:446 / 452
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[31]   Monitor unit settings for intensity modulated beams delivered using a step-and-shoot approach [J].
Sharpe, MB ;
Miller, BM ;
Yan, D ;
Wong, JW .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2000, 27 (12) :2719-2725
[32]  
SSRMP WG, 2007, SSRMP REC 15 QUAL CO
[33]   D-IMRT verification with a 2D pixel ionization chamber: dosimetric and clinical results in head and neck cancer [J].
Stasi, M ;
Giordanengo, S ;
Cirio, R ;
Boriano, A ;
Bourhaleb, F ;
Cornelius, I ;
Donetti, M ;
Garelli, E ;
Gomola, I ;
Marchetto, F ;
Porzio, M ;
Freire, CJS ;
Sardo, A ;
Peroni, C .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (19) :4681-4694
[34]   Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans [J].
Stock, M ;
Kroupa, B ;
Georg, D .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (03) :399-411
[35]   Accurate dosimetry with GafChromic™ EBT film of a 6 MV photon beam in water:: What level is achievable? [J].
van Batturn, L. J. ;
Hoffmans, D. ;
Piersma, H. ;
Heukelom, S. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (02) :704-716
[36]   The next step in patient-specific QA: 3D dose verification of conformal and intensity-modulated RT based on EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo dose calculations [J].
van Etmpt, Wouter ;
Nijsten, Sebastiaan ;
Mijnheer, Ben ;
Dekker, Andre ;
Lambin, Philippe .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 86 (01) :86-92
[37]   3D dose reconstruction for clinical evaluation of IMRT pretreatment verification with an EPID [J].
van Zijtveld, Mathilda ;
Dirkx, Maarten L. P. ;
de Boer, Hans C. J. ;
Heijmen, Ben J. M. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 82 (02) :201-207
[38]   Evaluation of the 'dose of the day' for IMRT prostate cancer patients derived from portal dose measurements and cone-beam CT [J].
van Zijtveld, Mathilda ;
Dirkx, Maarten ;
Breuers, Marcel ;
Kuipers, Ruud ;
Heijmen, Ben .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2010, 96 (02) :172-177