Cargando…

Evaluation of a fast method of EPID‐based dosimetry for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) could potentially be useful for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA. The data density, high resolution, large active area, and efficiency of the MV EPID make it an attractive option. However, EPIDs were designed as imaging devices, not dosimeters...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nelms, Benjamin E., Rasmussen, Karl H., Tomé, Wolfgang A.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v11i2.3185
Descripción
Sumario:Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) could potentially be useful for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA. The data density, high resolution, large active area, and efficiency of the MV EPID make it an attractive option. However, EPIDs were designed as imaging devices, not dosimeters, and as a result they do not inherently measure dose in tissue equivalent media. EPIDose (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) is a tool designed for the use of EPIDs in IMRT QA that uses raw MV EPID images (no additional build‐up and independent of gantry angle, but with dark and flood field corrections applied) to estimate absolute dose planes normal to the beam axis in a homogeneous media (i.e. similar to conventional IMRT QA methods). However, because of the inherent challenges of the EPID‐based dosimetry, validating and commissioning such a system must be done very carefully, by exploring the range of use cases and using well‐proven “standards” for comparison. In this work, a multi‐institutional study was performed to verify accurate EPID image to dose plane conversion over a variety of conditions. Converted EPID images were compared to 2D diode array absolute dose measurements for 188 fields from 28 clinical IMRT treatment plans. These plans were generated using a number of commercially available treatment planning systems (TPS) covering various treatment sites including prostate, head and neck, brain, and lung. The data included three beam energies (6, 10, and 15 MV) and both step‐and‐shoot and dynamic MLC fields. Out of 26,207 points of comparison over 188 fields analyzed, the average overall field pass rate was 99.7% when [Formula: see text] DTA criteria were used (range 94.0–100 per field). The pass rates for more stringent criteria were 97.8% for [Formula: see text] DTA (range 82.0–100 per field), and 84.6% for [Formula: see text] DTA (range 54.7–100 per field). Individual patient‐specific sites as well, as different beam energies, followed similar trends to the overall pass rates. PACS number: 87.53.Dq; 87.66.Jj