1
|
Giglioli FR, Gallio E, Franco P, Badellino S, Ricardi U, Fiandra C. Clinical evaluation of a transmission detector system and comparison with a homogeneous 3D phantom dosimeter. Phys Med 2019; 58:159-164. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.01.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2018] [Revised: 01/23/2019] [Accepted: 01/26/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
2
|
Bedford JL, Hanson IM, Hansen VN. Comparison of forward- and back-projection in vivo EPID dosimetry for VMAT treatment of the prostate. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63:025008. [PMID: 29165319 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9c60] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
In the forward-projection method of portal dosimetry for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the integrated signal at the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is predicted at the time of treatment planning, against which the measured integrated image is compared. In the back-projection method, the measured signal at each gantry angle is back-projected through the patient CT scan to give a measure of total dose to the patient. This study aims to investigate the practical agreement between the two types of EPID dosimetry for prostate radiotherapy. The AutoBeam treatment planning system produced VMAT plans together with corresponding predicted portal images, and a total of 46 sets of gantry-resolved portal images were acquired in 13 patients using an iViewGT portal imager. For the forward-projection method, each acquisition of gantry-resolved images was combined into a single integrated image and compared with the predicted image. For the back-projection method, iViewDose was used to calculate the dose distribution in the patient for comparison with the planned dose. A gamma index for 3% and 3 mm was used for both methods. The results were investigated by delivering the same plans to a phantom and repeating some of the deliveries with deliberately introduced errors. The strongest agreement between forward- and back-projection methods is seen in the isocentric intensity/dose difference, with moderate agreement in the mean gamma. The strongest correlation is observed within a given patient, with less correlation between patients, the latter representing the accuracy of prediction of the two methods. The error study shows that each of the two methods has its own distinct sensitivity to errors, but that overall the response is similar. The forward- and back-projection EPID dosimetry methods show moderate agreement in this series of prostate VMAT patients, indicating that both methods can contribute to the verification of dose delivered to the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James L Bedford
- Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SM2 5PT, United Kingdom
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
McCowan PM, Asuni G, Van Uytven E, VanBeek T, McCurdy BMC, Loewen SK, Ahmed N, Bashir B, Butler JB, Chowdhury A, Dubey A, Leylek A, Nashed M. Clinical Implementation of a Model-Based In Vivo Dose Verification System for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy-Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatments Using the Electronic Portal Imaging Device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97:1077-1084. [PMID: 28332992 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2016] [Revised: 12/27/2016] [Accepted: 01/25/2017] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report findings from an in vivo dosimetry program implemented for all stereotactic body radiation therapy patients over a 31-month period and discuss the value and challenges of utilizing in vivo electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry clinically. METHODS AND MATERIALS From December 2013 to July 2016, 117 stereotactic body radiation therapy-volumetric modulated arc therapy patients (100 lung, 15 spine, and 2 liver) underwent 602 EPID-based in vivo dose verification events. A developed model-based dose reconstruction algorithm calculates the 3-dimensional dose distribution to the patient by back-projecting the primary fluence measured by the EPID during treatment. The EPID frame-averaging was optimized in June 2015. For each treatment, a 3%/3-mm γ comparison between our EPID-derived dose and the Eclipse AcurosXB-predicted dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and the ≥20% isodose volume were performed. Alert levels were defined as γ pass rates <85% (lung and liver) and <80% (spine). Investigations were carried out for all fractions exceeding the alert level and were classified as follows: EPID-related, algorithmic, patient setup, anatomic change, or unknown/unidentified errors. RESULTS The percentages of fractions exceeding the alert levels were 22.6% for lung before frame-average optimization and 8.0% for lung, 20.0% for spine, and 10.0% for liver after frame-average optimization. Overall, mean (± standard deviation) planning target volume γ pass rates were 90.7% ± 9.2%, 87.0% ± 9.3%, and 91.2% ± 3.4% for the lung, spine, and liver patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Results from the clinical implementation of our model-based in vivo dose verification method using on-treatment EPID images is reported. The method is demonstrated to be valuable for routine clinical use for verifying delivered dose as well as for detecting errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter M McCowan
- Medical Physics Department, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
| | - Ganiyu Asuni
- Medical Physics Department, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Eric Van Uytven
- Medical Physics Department, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Timothy VanBeek
- Medical Physics Department, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Boyd M C McCurdy
- Medical Physics Department, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Shaun K Loewen
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|