Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Pre-treatment Verification Performed with Electronic Portal Imager Device (EPID) and IMatriXX for 204 Cancer Patients Treated with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) – Phantom Based Study

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Mahendra More 1
Vandana Jain 1
Om Prakash Gurjar 2
1 Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Rural Medical College, Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Loni, Maharashtra; India
2 Government Cancer Hospital, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, Madhya Pradesh; India
10.22038/ijmp.2020.50094.1816
Abstract
Introduction: State-of-art radiotherapy technique as Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) are being used to treat cancer with high accuracy. Verification of planned and delivered dose distribution is critical; in this study we evaluated quality assurance (QA) results and effectiveness of Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and IMatriXX.
Material and Methods: Performance of EPID and IMatriXX was assessed with dose measurements using ionization chamber. Calibrated IMatriXX and EPID are used for pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for 204 patients plans with IMRT treatment technique on LINAC. Dose image were compared for gamma evaluation (3%/3mm) and combination of three scalar parameters were assessed against EPID to quantify gamma results within region of interest; namely average g(gavg), maximum g(gmax) and Area Gamma<1.
Results: The g correlation comparisons yielded an average correlation of 0.991 for IMatriXX and 0.978 for EPID. The maximum gamma value is 0.99, while the minimum gamma is 0.872 for IMatriXX and 0.926 for EPID, which can be used as baseline. Our result suggests that EPID dosimetry, provides lower gamma correlation values than IMatriXX. Students Unpaired t-Test analysis was applied to two data sets. The calculated p-value 0.001 shows good correlation.
Conclusion: The EPID and IMatriXX have significantly improved dosimetric properties, providing more sensitive, accurate pre-treatment PSQA. The result shows EPID can replace other 2D dosimetry methods and ionization chamber measurements. It’s an efficient, sensitive and accurate dosimetry tool and is primary protocol of pre-treatment quality assurance.
Keywords
Portal Imaging
Patient Specific Quality Assurance
Dosimetry
Subjects
  1. El‐Mohri Y, Antonuk LE, Yorkston J, Jee KW, Maolinbay M, Lam KL, Siewerdsen JH. Relative dosimetry using active matrix flat‐panel imager (AMFPI) technology. Medical physics. 1999 Aug;26(8):1530-41..
  2. McCurdy BM, Luchka K, Pistorius S. Dosimetric investigation and portal dose image prediction using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Medical physics. 2001 Jun;28(6):911-24..
  3. Grein EE, Lee R, Luchka K. An investigation of a new amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for transit dosimetry. Medical physics. 2002 Oct;29(10):2262-8..
  4. Greer PB, Popescu CC. Dosimetric properties of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for verification of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy. Medical physics. 2003 Jul;30(7):1618-27.
  5. Warkentin B, Steciw S, Rathee S, Fallone BG. Dosimetric IMRT verification with a flat‐panel EPID. Medical physics. 2003 Dec;30(12):3143-55.
  6. McDermott LN, Louwe RJ, Sonke JJ, Van Herk MB, Mijnheer BJ. Dose–response and ghosting effects of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Medical physics. 2004 Feb;31(2):285-95.
  7. Louwe RJ, McDermott LN, Sonke JJ, Tielenburg R, Wendling M, Van Herk MB, Mijnheer BJ. The long‐term stability of amorphous silicon flat panel imaging devices for dosimetry purposes: Stability of EPID response. Medical physics. 2004 Nov;31(11):2989-95.
  8. Partridge M, Evans PM, Mosleh‐Shirazi A, Convery D. Independent verification using portal imaging of intensity‐modulated beam delivery by the dynamic MLC technique. Medical physics. 1998 Oct;25(10):1872-9.
  9. Bucciolini M, Banci Buonamici F, Casati M. Verification of IMRT fields by film dosimetry. Medical physics. 2004 Jan;31(1):161-8.
  10. Georg D, Kroupa B, Winkler P, Pötter R. Normalized sensitometric curves for the verification of hybrid IMRT treatment plans with multiple energies. Medical physics. 2003 Jun;30(6):1142-50.
  11. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Siddiqui K. Evolution of the digital revolution: a radiologist perspective. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2003 Dec 1;16(4):324-30.
  12. Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Jan 12;50(3):399.
  13. Jursinic PA, Nelms BE. A 2‐D diode array and analysis software for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery. Medical physics. 2003 May;30(5):870-9.
  14. Létourneau D, Gulam M, Yan D, Oldham M, Wong JW. Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2004 Feb 1;70(2):199-206.
  15. Wiezorek T, Banz N, Schwedas M, Scheithauer M, Salz H, Georg D, Wendt TG. Dosimetric Quality Assurance for Intensity–Modulated Radiotherapy. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2005 Jul 1;181(7):468-74.
  16. Childress NL, Bloch C, White RA, Salehpour M, Rosen II. Detection of IMRT delivery errors using a quantitative 2D dosimetric verification system. Medical physics. 2005 Jan;32(1):153-62.
  17. Lang S, Reggiori G, Puxeu Vaque J, Calle C, Hrbacek J, Klöck S, Scorsetti M, Cozzi L, Mancosu P. Pretreatment quality assurance of flattening filter free beams on 224 patients for intensity modulated plans: a multicentric study. Medical physics. 2012 Mar;39(3):1351-6.
  18. Steciw S, Warkentin B, Rathee S, Fallone BG. Three‐dimensional IMRT verification with a flat‐panel EPID. Medical physics. 2005 Feb;32(2):600-12.
  19. Wendling M, Louwe RJ, McDermott LN, Sonke JJ, van Herk M, Mijnheer BJ. Accurate two‐dimensional IMRT verification using a back‐projection EPID dosimetry method. Medical physics. 2006 Feb;33(2):259-73.
  20. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Medical physics. 1998 May;25(5):656-61.
  21. Pulliam KB, Huang JY, Howell RM, Followill D, Bosca R, O’Daniel J, Kry SF. Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses. Medical physics. 2014 Feb;41(2):021710.
  22. Warkentin B, Steciw S, Rathee S, Fallone BG. Dosimetric IMRT verification with a flat‐panel EPID. Medical physics. 2003 Dec;30(12):3143-55.
  23. Winkler P, Zurl B, Guss H, Kindl P, Stuecklschweiger G. Performance analysis of a film dosimetric quality assurance procedure for IMRT with regard to the employment of quantitative evaluation methods. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Jan 25;50(4):643.
  24. Childress NL, White RA, Bloch C, Salehpour M, Dong L, Rosen II. Retrospective analysis of 2D patient‐specific IMRT verifications. Medical physics. 2005 Apr;32(4):838-50.
  25. Budgell GJ, Perrin BA, Mott JH, Fairfoul J, Mackay RI. Quantitative analysis of patient-specific dosimetric IMRT verification. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2004 Dec 16;50(1):103.
  26. Partridge M, Symonds-Tayler JR, Evans PM. IMRT verification with a camera-based electronic portal imaging system. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2000 Dec;45(12):N183.
  27. Louwe RJ, Damen EM, Van Herk M, Minken AW, Törzsök O, Mijnheer BJ. Three‐dimensional dose reconstruction of breast cancer treatment using portal imaging. Medical physics. 2003 Sep;30(9):2376-89.
  28. Mancuso GM, Fontenot JD, Gibbons JP, Parker BC. Comparison of action levels for patient‐specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments. Medical physics. 2012 Jul;39(7Part1):4378-85.
  29. Kry SF, Molineu A, Kerns JR, Faught AM, Huang JY, Pulliam KB, Tonigan J, Alvarez P, Stingo F, Followill DS. Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1195-201.
  30. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, Li H, Wijesooriya K, Shi J, Xia P, Papanikolaou N. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Medical physics. 2018 Apr;45(4):e53-83.
  31. McKenzie EM, Balter PA, Stingo FC, Jones J, Followill DS, Kry SF. Toward optimizing patient‐specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans. Medical physics. 2014 Dec;41(12):121702.
  32. Chan MF, Li J, Schupak K, Burman C. Using a novel dose QA tool to quantify the impact of systematic errors otherwise undetected by conventional QA methods: clinical head and neck case studies. Technology in cancer research & treatment. 2014 Feb;13(1):57-67.
  33. Childress NL, Rosen II. The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2003 Aug 1;56(5):1464-79.
  34. Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Jan 12;50(3):399.
  35. Chang J, Ling CC. Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2003 Sep;4(4):287-99.
  36. van Zijtveld M, Dirkx ML, de Boer HC, Heijmen BJ. Dosimetric pre-treatment verification of IMRT using an EPID; clinical experience. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2006 Nov 1;81(2):168-75.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 18, Issue 6
November and December 2021
Pages 444-451

  • Receive Date 01 July 2020
  • Revise Date 29 September 2020
  • Accept Date 22 October 2020