The Effect of Total Fields' Area and Dose Distribution in Step and Shoot IMRT on Gamma Passing Rate Using OCTAVIUS 4D-1500 Detector Phantom

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Alamal National Hospital for Cancer Treatment, Baghdad, Iraq

2 Department of phsiology and medical physics, college of medicine, Alnahrain university, Iraq

3 Oncology Department, Baghdad University, Diwaniya, Iraq

4 Al-Mansour University College, Medical Instrumentation Engineering Department, Baghdad, Iraq

5 Physicist, Ministry of Health and Environment/Medical City, Baghdad Center for Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract

Introduction: Quality assurance is necessary for every IMRT plan.‎Octavius 4D-1500 detector phantom is ‎one of the new phantoms for ‎determining the treatment plan quality‎.‎ This study aimed to examine the IMRT plans using the ‎Octavius 4D-1500‎‏ ‏‎to determine if ‎it is a reliable, ‎dependable, and durable. 
Material and Methods: IMRT QA conducted for 30 cases: HN and pelvis. The Monaco TPS used for treatment planning. The treatment plans ‎were then applied ‎to the Octavius 4D-1500 phantom (virtually and actually), ‎‎the γ-index was calculated in VeriSoft program to evaluate the IMRT plans.
Results: Significant differences were observed between the ‎‎‎measured and calculated dose distributions for HN and pelvic plans, while the treatment ‎sites did not affect the GP rate. The results of the global Gp ‎ were higher than the local GP, ‎regardless of the study criteria. The ‎HN plans ‎showed a more significant difference ‎than the pelvic plans. The HN plans, ‎a ‎strong significant correlation was found between the total ‎fields’area and %GP in both global ‎‎and local analyses, while in the pelvic plans, there was only a significant association with the ‎local %GP.
Conclusion: The measured dose distributions significantly different from calculated distributions. The relationship between the ‎‎fields’ ‏‎ area ‎and ‎‎‎%GP was inverse. In the HN plans, a ‎significant correlation found between the total ‎‎fields’ ‎area ‎and %GP in both global and ‎local, while only local %GP in the pelvic plans was significant correlation. Overall, the Octavius 4D-1500 detector phantom ‎might be applicable for ‎assessing the QA of IMRT plans.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. 1.        Moran JM, Dempsey M, Eisbruch A, Fraass BA, Galvin JM, Ibbott GS, et al. Safety considerations for IMRT: executive summary. Medical physics. 2011 Sep 1;38(9):5067-72.

    1. Chera BS, Jackson M, Mazur LM, Adams R, Chang S, Deschesne K, et al. Improving quality of patient care by improving daily practice in radiation oncology. InSeminars in radiation oncology. 2012; 22(1) : 77-85.
    2. Rehman JU, Ahmad N, Khalid M, Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar HM, Gilani ZA, Ullah I, et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy: A review of current practice and future outlooks. Journal of radiation research and applied sciences. 2018 Oct 1;11(4):361-7.
    3. Moran JM, Radawski J, Fraass BA. A dose‐gradient analysis tool for IMRT QA. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2005 Mar;6(2):62-73.
    4. Williams PC. IMRT: delivery techniques and quality assurance. The British journal of radiology. 2003 Nov;76(911):766-76.
    5. Khan FM, Gibbons JP. Khan’s the physics of radiation therapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
    6. Van Esch A, Basta K, Evrard M, Ghislain M, Sergent F, Huyskens DP. The Octavius1500 2D ion chamber array and its associated phantoms: Dosimetric characterization of a new prototype. Medical physics. 2014 Sep;41(9):091708.
    7. Stathakis S, Myers P, Esquivel C, Mavroidis P, Papanikolaou N. Characterization of a novel 2D array dosimeter for patient‐specific quality assurance with volumetric arc therapy. Medical physics. 2013 Jul;40(7):071731.
    8. Anders M. Clinical 3D dosimetry in modern radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2018.
    9. James H, Beavis A, Budgell G, Clark C, Convery D, Mott J, et al. Guidance for the clinical implementation of intensity modulated radiation therapy. IPEM report. 2008;96:2008.
    10. Chong NS, Lee JJ, Kung WH, Chen CA, Hsieh CH, Tien HJ, et al. Patient delivery quality assurance for linac-based IMRT and helical tomotherapy using solid state detectors. Radiation measurements. 2011 Dec 1;46(12):1993-5.
    11. Fredh A, Scherman JB, Fog LS, Munck af Rosenschöld P. Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Medical physics. 2013 Mar;40(3):031716.
    12. Nelms BE, Simon JA. A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2007 Jun;8(3):76-90.
    13. Both S, Alecu IM, Stan AR, Alecu M, Ciura A, Hansen JM, et al. A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2007 Mar;8(2):1-8.
    14. Basran PS, Woo MK. An analysis of tolerance levels in IMRT quality assurance procedures. Medical physics. 2008 Jun;35(6Part1):2300-7.
    15. Howell RM, Smith IP, Jarrio CS. Establishing action levels for EPID‐based QA for IMRT. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2008 Jun;9(3):16-25.
    16. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Medical physics. 2009 Nov 1;36(11):5359-73.
    17. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Medical physics. 2018 Apr;45(4):53-83.
    18. Pulliam KB, Followill D, Court L, Dong L, Gillin M, Prado K, et al. A six‐year review of more than 13,000 patient‐specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2014 Sep;15(5):196-206.
    19. Dong L, Antolak J, Salehpour M, Forster K, O’Neill L, Kendall R, et al. Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2003 Jul 1;56(3):867-77.
    20. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W. On the sensitivity of common gamma‐index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Medical physics. 2013 Mar;40(3):031702.
    21. Winiecki J, Morgaś T, Majewska K, Drzewiecka B. The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2009 Sep 1;14(5):162-8.
    22. Bailey DW, Nelms BE, Attwood K, Kumaraswamy L, Podgorsak MB. Statistical variability and confidence intervals for planar dose QA pass rates. Medical physics. 2011 Nov;38(11):6053-64.

    24. Wu S, Chen J, Li Z, Qiu Q, Wang X, Li C, et al. Analysis of dose verification results for 924 intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans. Precision Radiation Oncology. 2018 Dec;2(4):125-30. 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 18, Issue 4
July and August 2021
Pages 226-231

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 November 2019
  • Revise Date: 16 April 2020
  • Accept Date: 26 April 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics