Cargando…

Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient‐specific, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) io...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKenzie, Elizabeth M., Balter, Peter A., Stingo, Francesco C., Jones, Jimmy, Followill, David S., Kry, Stephen F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i3.4741
_version_ 1782480573029154816
author McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
Balter, Peter A.
Stingo, Francesco C.
Jones, Jimmy
Followill, David S.
Kry, Stephen F.
author_facet McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
Balter, Peter A.
Stingo, Francesco C.
Jones, Jimmy
Followill, David S.
Kry, Stephen F.
author_sort McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient‐specific, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field‐by‐field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in‐house‐designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in‐house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4048867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40488672018-04-02 Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA McKenzie, Elizabeth M. Balter, Peter A. Stingo, Francesco C. Jones, Jimmy Followill, David S. Kry, Stephen F. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient‐specific, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field‐by‐field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in‐house‐designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in‐house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4048867/ /pubmed/24892350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i3.4741 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
Balter, Peter A.
Stingo, Francesco C.
Jones, Jimmy
Followill, David S.
Kry, Stephen F.
Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title_full Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title_fullStr Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title_short Reproducibility in patient‐specific IMRT QA
title_sort reproducibility in patient‐specific imrt qa
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i3.4741
work_keys_str_mv AT mckenzieelizabethm reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa
AT balterpetera reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa
AT stingofrancescoc reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa
AT jonesjimmy reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa
AT followilldavids reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa
AT krystephenf reproducibilityinpatientspecificimrtqa