Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:02:34.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning: a dosimetric comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2018

Saima Altaf ,
Khalid Iqbal ,
Muhammad Akram  and
Saeed A. Buzdar
Saima Altaf
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan Department of Physics, The Women University, Multan, Pakistan
Khalid Iqbal*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan Department of Clinical & Radiation Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Akram
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Saeed A. Buzdar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
*
Author for correspondence: Khalid Iqbal, Department of Clinical & Radiation Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan. Tel: +92 42359 05000. Fax: +92 42359 45206. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to analyse the comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using Gafchromic® EBT3 film, Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and MapCHECK®2.

Background

Pretreatment authentication is the main apprehension in advanced radiation therapy treatment plans such as IMRT.

Materials and methods

A total of 20 patients were planned on Eclipse treatment planning system using 6 and 15 MV separately.

Results

Gamma index of EBT3 film results shows the following average passing rates: 97% for 6 MV and 96·6% for 15 MV using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm for brain. However, by using ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm criteria, the average passing rates were 95·4% on 6 MV and 95·2% on 15 MV for prostate. For EPID, the results show the average passing rates as 97·8% for 6 MV and 97·2% for 15 MV in for brain. In cases in which ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm were used, the average passing rates were 96·6% for 6 MVand 96·1% for 15 MV for prostate. MapCHECK®2 results show average passing rates of 96·4% for 6 and 96·2% for 15 MV, respectively, for brain using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm, whereas for ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm the average rates are 95·2% for 6 and 94·7% for 15 MV in prostate.

Conclusions

The EPID results are better than the other methods, and hence EPID can be used effectively for IMRT pretreatment verifications.

Keywords

dosimetry and MapCHECK®2EPIDGafchromic EBT3 filmpatient-specific IMRT QA
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 396 - 402
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Huq, M S, Fraass, B A, Dunscombe, P B et al. A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (1): S170–S173.Google Scholar
2. Iqbal, K, Isa, M, Buzdar, S A, Gifford, K A, Afzal, M. Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2013; 18 (2): 101–106.Google Scholar
3. Budgell, G J, Perrin, B A, Mott, J H L, Fairfoul, J, Mackay, R I. Quantitative analysis of patient-specific dosimetric IMRT verification. Phys Med Biol 2004; 50 (1): 103.Google Scholar
4. Borca, V C, Pasquino, M, Russo, G et al. Dosimetric characterization and use of GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film for IMRT dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14 (2): 158–171.Google Scholar
5. Gifford, K A, Iqbal, K, Grant, R L, Buzdar, S A, Ibbott, G S. Dosimetric verification of a commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system for a single Entry APBI Hybrid Catheter Device by PRESAGE® and Radiochromic Film. Brachytherapy 2013; 12: 11–77.Google Scholar
6. Fuss, M, Sturtewagen, E, De Wagter, C, Georg, D. Dosimetric characterization of GafChromic EBT film and its implication on film dosimetry quality assurance. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52 (14): 4211.Google Scholar
7. Oldham, M, Sakhalkar, H, Guo, P, Adamovics, J. An investigation of the accuracy of an IMRT dose distribution using two-and three-dimensional dosimetry techniques. Medical physics 2008; 35 (5): 2072–2080.Google Scholar
8. Iqbal, K, Iqbal, M M, Akram, M, Altaf, S, Buzdar, S A. Dosimetric verification and quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using Gafchromic® EBT3 film. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (1): 85–95.Google Scholar
9. Oldham, M, Guo, P, Gluckman, G, Adamovics, J. IMRT verification using a radiochromic/optical-CT dosimetry system. J Phys Conf Ser 2006; 56 (1): 221.Google Scholar
10. Iqbal, K, Ibbott, G S, Lafratta, R G, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, S A. Dosimetric characterisation of anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and EBT2 film for partial breast radiotherapy. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (1): 96–103.Google Scholar
11. Iqbal, K, Gillin, M, Summers, P A, Dhanesar, S, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, S A. Quality assurance evaluation of spot scanning beam proton therapy with an anthropomorphic prostate phantom. Br J Radiol 2013; 86 (1031): 20130390.Google Scholar
12. Borca, V C, Pasquino, M, Russo, G et al. Dosimetric characterization and use of GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film for IMRT dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14 (2): 158–171.Google Scholar
13. Iqbal, K, Gifford, K A, Ibbott, G, Grant, R L, Buzdar, S. Comparison of an anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and radiochromic film with a commercial radiation treatment planning system for breast IMRT: a feasibility study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15 (1): 363–374.Google Scholar
14. van Elmpt, W, McDermott, L, Nijsten, S, Wendling, M, Lambin, P, Mijnheer, B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2008; 88 (3): 289–309.Google Scholar
15. Zhu, Y, Jiang, X Q, Van Dyk, J. Portal dosimetry using a liquid ion chamber matrix: dose response studies. Med Phys 1995; 22 (7): 1101–1106.Google Scholar
16. Mijnheer, B. State of the art of in vivo dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 131 (1): 117–122.Google Scholar
17. Herman, M G, Kruse, JJ, Hagness, CR. Guide to clinical use of electronic portal imaging. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2000; 1 (2): 38–57.Google Scholar
18. Herman, M G, Balter, J M, Jaffray, D A et al. Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58. Med Phys 2001; 28 (5): 712–737.Google Scholar
19. Antonuk, L E. Electronic portal imaging devices: a review and historical perspective of contemporary technologies and research. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47 (6): R31.Google Scholar
20. Cremers, F, Frenzel, T, Kausch, C, Albers, D, Schönborn, T, Schmidt, R. Performance of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) used in radiotherapy: image quality and dose measurements. Med Phys 2004; 31 (5): 985–996.Google Scholar
21. Howell, R M, Smith, I P, Jarrio, C S. Establishing action levels for EPID-based QA for IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008; 9 (3): 16–25.Google Scholar
22. Jursinic, P A, Nelms, B E. A 2-D diode array and analysis software for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery. Med Phys 2003; 30 (5): 870–879.Google Scholar
23. Buonamici, F B, Compagnucci, A, Marrazzo, L, Russo, S, Bucciolini, M. An intercomparison between film dosimetry and diode matrix for IMRT quality assurance. Med Phys 2007; 34 (4): 1372–1379.Google Scholar
24. Liu, J, Wang, Z, Kumaraswamy, L, Nazareth, D, Podgorsak, M, Malhotra, H. SU‐GG‐T‐169: comparison of the efficacy of MapCHECK and portal dosimetry in the pretreatment QA of IMRT treatment plans. Med Phys 2008; 35 (6): 2764–2765.Google Scholar
25. Pasma, K L, Dirkx, M L, Kroonwijk, M, Visser, A G, Heijmen, B J. Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation using an electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 1999; 26 (11): 2373–2378.Google Scholar
26. Van Zijtveld, M, Dirkx, M L, de Boer, H C, Heijmen, B J. Dosimetric pre-treatment verification of IMRT using an EPID; clinical experience. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81 (2): 168–175.Google Scholar
27. Greer, P. Off-axis dose response characteristics of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 2007; 34: 3815–3824.Google Scholar
28. Greer, P B, Popescu, C C. Dosimetric properties of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for verification of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys 2003; 30 (7): 1618–1627.Google Scholar
29. Luchka, K, Pistorius, S. Dosimetric investigation and portal dose image prediction using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 2001; 28 (6): 911–924.Google Scholar
30. Bailey, D, Kumaraswamy, L, Podgorsak, M. A fully electronic intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) process implemented in a network comprised of independent treatment planning, record and verify, and delivery systems. Radiol Oncol 2010; 44 (2): 124–130.Google Scholar
31. Nelms, B E, Rasmussen, K H, Tome, W A. Evaluation of a fast method of EPID-based dosimetry for intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (2): 3185.Google Scholar
32. Létourneau, D, Gulam, M, Yan, D, Oldham, M, Wong, J W. Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70 (2): 199–206.Google Scholar
33. Ferreira, B C, Lopes, M C, Capela, M. Evaluation of an Epson flatbed scanner to read Gafchromic EBT films for radiation dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54 (4): 1073.Google Scholar
34. Borca, V C, Pasquino, M, Russo, G et al. Dosimetric characterization and use of GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film for IMRT dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14 (2): 158–171.Google Scholar
35. Klein, E E, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009; 36 (9 Pt 1): 4197–4212.Google Scholar