Cargando…
Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques
A pretreatment quality assurance program for volumetric techniques should include redundant calculations and measurement‐based verifications. The patient‐specific quality assurance process must be based in clinically relevant metrics. The aim of this study was to show the commission, clinical implem...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5190 |
_version_ | 1783279526753599488 |
---|---|
author | Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco Pérez‐Vara, Consuelo |
author_facet | Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco Pérez‐Vara, Consuelo |
author_sort | Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco |
collection | PubMed |
description | A pretreatment quality assurance program for volumetric techniques should include redundant calculations and measurement‐based verifications. The patient‐specific quality assurance process must be based in clinically relevant metrics. The aim of this study was to show the commission, clinical implementation, and comparison of two systems that allow performing a 3D redundant dose calculation. In addition, one of them is capable of reconstructing the dose on patient anatomy from measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array. Both systems were compared in terms of reference calibration data (absolute dose, output factors, percentage depth‐dose curves, and profiles). Results were in good agreement for absolute dose values (discrepancies were below 0.5%) and output factors (mean differences were below 1%). Maximum mean discrepancies were located between 10 and 20 cm of depth for PDDs (‐2.7%) and in the penumbra region for profiles (mean DTA of 1.5 mm). Validation of the systems was performed by comparing point‐dose measurements with values obtained by the two systems for static, dynamic fields from AAPM TG‐119 report, and 12 real VMAT plans for different anatomical sites (differences better than 1.2%). Comparisons between measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array and results obtained by both systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 87.0% and 97.9% for the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] criteria). Clinical implementation of the systems was evaluated by comparing dose‐volume parameters for all TG‐119 tests and real VMAT plans with TPS values (mean differences were below 1%). In addition, comparisons between dose distributions calculated by TPS and those extracted by the two systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 86.0% and 93.0% for the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] criteria). The clinical use of both systems was successfully evaluated. PACS numbers: 87.56.Fc, 87.56.‐v, 87.55.dk, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.‐x, 07.57.Kp, 85.25.Pb |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5690088 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56900882018-04-02 Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco Pérez‐Vara, Consuelo J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics A pretreatment quality assurance program for volumetric techniques should include redundant calculations and measurement‐based verifications. The patient‐specific quality assurance process must be based in clinically relevant metrics. The aim of this study was to show the commission, clinical implementation, and comparison of two systems that allow performing a 3D redundant dose calculation. In addition, one of them is capable of reconstructing the dose on patient anatomy from measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array. Both systems were compared in terms of reference calibration data (absolute dose, output factors, percentage depth‐dose curves, and profiles). Results were in good agreement for absolute dose values (discrepancies were below 0.5%) and output factors (mean differences were below 1%). Maximum mean discrepancies were located between 10 and 20 cm of depth for PDDs (‐2.7%) and in the penumbra region for profiles (mean DTA of 1.5 mm). Validation of the systems was performed by comparing point‐dose measurements with values obtained by the two systems for static, dynamic fields from AAPM TG‐119 report, and 12 real VMAT plans for different anatomical sites (differences better than 1.2%). Comparisons between measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array and results obtained by both systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 87.0% and 97.9% for the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] criteria). Clinical implementation of the systems was evaluated by comparing dose‐volume parameters for all TG‐119 tests and real VMAT plans with TPS values (mean differences were below 1%). In addition, comparisons between dose distributions calculated by TPS and those extracted by the two systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 86.0% and 93.0% for the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] criteria). The clinical use of both systems was successfully evaluated. PACS numbers: 87.56.Fc, 87.56.‐v, 87.55.dk, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.‐x, 07.57.Kp, 85.25.Pb John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690088/ /pubmed/26103189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5190 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (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 Clemente‐Gutiérrez, Francisco Pérez‐Vara, Consuelo Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title | Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title_full | Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title_fullStr | Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title_short | Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
title_sort | dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3d dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5190 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT clementegutierrezfrancisco dosimetricvalidationandclinicalimplementationoftwo3ddoseverificationsystemsforqualityassuranceinvolumetricmodulatedarctherapytechniques AT perezvaraconsuelo dosimetricvalidationandclinicalimplementationoftwo3ddoseverificationsystemsforqualityassuranceinvolumetricmodulatedarctherapytechniques |