Cargando…
Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System
INTRODUCTION: Results of use of methodology for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance, utilizing both control point tests and dosimetric measurements are presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A generalizable, phantom measurement approach is used to characterize the accuracy of the measurement system....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23554948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058877 |
_version_ | 1782262835432128512 |
---|---|
author | Mayo, Charles Fong de los Santos, Luis Kruse, Jon Blackwell, Charles R. McLemore, Luke B. Pafundi, Deanna Stoker, Joshua Herman, Michael |
author_facet | Mayo, Charles Fong de los Santos, Luis Kruse, Jon Blackwell, Charles R. McLemore, Luke B. Pafundi, Deanna Stoker, Joshua Herman, Michael |
author_sort | Mayo, Charles |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Results of use of methodology for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance, utilizing both control point tests and dosimetric measurements are presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A generalizable, phantom measurement approach is used to characterize the accuracy of the measurement system. Correction for angular response of the measurement system and inclusion of couch structures are used to characterize the full range gantry angles desirable for clinical plans. A dose based daily QA measurement approach is defined. RESULTS: Agreement in the static vs. VMAT picket fence control point test was better than 0.5 mm. Control point tests varying gantry rotation speed, leaf speed and dose rate, demonstrated agreement with predicted values better than 1%. Angular dependence of the MatriXX array, varied over a range of 0.94–1.06, with respect to the calibration condition. Phantom measurements demonstrated central axis dose accuracy for un-modulated four field box plans was ≥2.5% vs. 1% with and without angular correction respectively with better results for VMAT (0.4%) vs. IMRT (1.6%) plans. Daily QA results demonstrated average agreement all three chambers within 0.4% over 9 month period with no false positives at a 3% threshold. DISCUSSION: The methodology described is simple in design and characterizes both the inherit limitations of the measurement system as well at the dose based measurements that may be directly related to patient plan QA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3598853 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35988532013-04-02 Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System Mayo, Charles Fong de los Santos, Luis Kruse, Jon Blackwell, Charles R. McLemore, Luke B. Pafundi, Deanna Stoker, Joshua Herman, Michael PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Results of use of methodology for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance, utilizing both control point tests and dosimetric measurements are presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A generalizable, phantom measurement approach is used to characterize the accuracy of the measurement system. Correction for angular response of the measurement system and inclusion of couch structures are used to characterize the full range gantry angles desirable for clinical plans. A dose based daily QA measurement approach is defined. RESULTS: Agreement in the static vs. VMAT picket fence control point test was better than 0.5 mm. Control point tests varying gantry rotation speed, leaf speed and dose rate, demonstrated agreement with predicted values better than 1%. Angular dependence of the MatriXX array, varied over a range of 0.94–1.06, with respect to the calibration condition. Phantom measurements demonstrated central axis dose accuracy for un-modulated four field box plans was ≥2.5% vs. 1% with and without angular correction respectively with better results for VMAT (0.4%) vs. IMRT (1.6%) plans. Daily QA results demonstrated average agreement all three chambers within 0.4% over 9 month period with no false positives at a 3% threshold. DISCUSSION: The methodology described is simple in design and characterizes both the inherit limitations of the measurement system as well at the dose based measurements that may be directly related to patient plan QA. Public Library of Science 2013-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3598853/ /pubmed/23554948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058877 Text en © 2013 Mayo et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Mayo, Charles Fong de los Santos, Luis Kruse, Jon Blackwell, Charles R. McLemore, Luke B. Pafundi, Deanna Stoker, Joshua Herman, Michael Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title | Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title_full | Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title_fullStr | Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title_full_unstemmed | Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title_short | Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System |
title_sort | report on use of a methodology for commissioning and quality assurance of a vmat system |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23554948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058877 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mayocharles reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT fongdelossantosluis reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT krusejon reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT blackwellcharlesr reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT mclemorelukeb reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT pafundideanna reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT stokerjoshua reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem AT hermanmichael reportonuseofamethodologyforcommissioningandqualityassuranceofavmatsystem |