Cargando…
Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28291938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12025 |
_version_ | 1783279478327214080 |
---|---|
author | McDonald, Daniel G. Jacqmin, Dustin J. Mart, Christopher J. Koch, Nicholas C. Peng, Jean L. Ashenafi, Michael S. Fugal, Mario A. Vanek, Kenneth N. |
author_facet | McDonald, Daniel G. Jacqmin, Dustin J. Mart, Christopher J. Koch, Nicholas C. Peng, Jean L. Ashenafi, Michael S. Fugal, Mario A. Vanek, Kenneth N. |
author_sort | McDonald, Daniel G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system. METHODS: Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system. RESULTS: The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases. CONCLUSION: Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5689885 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56898852018-04-02 Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom McDonald, Daniel G. Jacqmin, Dustin J. Mart, Christopher J. Koch, Nicholas C. Peng, Jean L. Ashenafi, Michael S. Fugal, Mario A. Vanek, Kenneth N. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system. METHODS: Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system. RESULTS: The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases. CONCLUSION: Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5689885/ /pubmed/28291938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12025 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics McDonald, Daniel G. Jacqmin, Dustin J. Mart, Christopher J. Koch, Nicholas C. Peng, Jean L. Ashenafi, Michael S. Fugal, Mario A. Vanek, Kenneth N. Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title | Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title_full | Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title_fullStr | Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title_short | Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
title_sort | validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28291938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12025 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcdonalddanielg validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT jacqmindustinj validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT martchristopherj validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT kochnicholasc validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT pengjeanl validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT ashenafimichaels validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT fugalmarioa validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom AT vanekkennethn validationofamodernsecondcheckdosimetrysystemusinganovelverificationphantom |