Cargando…

A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification

Quality assurance (QA) for intensity‐ and volumetric‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT and VMAT) has evolved substantially. In recent years, various commercial 2D and 3D ionization chamber or diode detector arrays have become available, allowing for absolute verification with near real time results, allo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hussein, Mohammad, Adams, Elizabeth J., Jordan, Thomas J., Clark, Catharine H., Nisbet, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460
_version_ 1783283625183150080
author Hussein, Mohammad
Adams, Elizabeth J.
Jordan, Thomas J.
Clark, Catharine H.
Nisbet, Andrew
author_facet Hussein, Mohammad
Adams, Elizabeth J.
Jordan, Thomas J.
Clark, Catharine H.
Nisbet, Andrew
author_sort Hussein, Mohammad
collection PubMed
description Quality assurance (QA) for intensity‐ and volumetric‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT and VMAT) has evolved substantially. In recent years, various commercial 2D and 3D ionization chamber or diode detector arrays have become available, allowing for absolute verification with near real time results, allowing for streamlined QA. However, detector arrays are limited by their resolution, giving rise to concerns about their sensitivity to errors. Understanding the limitations of these devices is therefore critical. In this study, the sensitivity and resolution of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom combination was comprehensively characterized for use in dynamic sliding window IMRT and RapidArc verification. Measurement comparisons were made between single acquisition and a multiple merged acquisition techniques to improve the effective resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY, as well as comparisons against GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film and electronic portal imaging dosimetry (EPID). The sensitivity and resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY was tested using two gantry angle 0° modulated test fields. Deliberate multileaf collimator (MLC) errors of 1, 2, and 5 mm and collimator rotation errors were inserted into IMRT and RapidArc plans for pelvis and head & neck sites, to test sensitivity to errors. The radiobiological impact of these errors was assessed to determine the gamma index passing criteria to be used with the 2D‐ARRAY to detect clinically relevant errors. For gamma index distributions, it was found that the 2D‐ARRAY in single acquisition mode was comparable to multiple acquisition modes, as well as film and EPID. It was found that the commonly used gamma index criteria of 3% dose difference or 3 mm distance to agreement may potentially mask clinically relevant errors. Gamma index criteria of 3%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 98%, or 2%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 95%, were found to be more sensitive. We suggest that the gamma index passing thresholds may be used for guidance, but also should be combined with a visual inspection of the gamma index distribution and calculation of the dose difference to assess whether there may be a clinical impact in failed regions. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5714639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57146392018-04-02 A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification Hussein, Mohammad Adams, Elizabeth J. Jordan, Thomas J. Clark, Catharine H. Nisbet, Andrew J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Quality assurance (QA) for intensity‐ and volumetric‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT and VMAT) has evolved substantially. In recent years, various commercial 2D and 3D ionization chamber or diode detector arrays have become available, allowing for absolute verification with near real time results, allowing for streamlined QA. However, detector arrays are limited by their resolution, giving rise to concerns about their sensitivity to errors. Understanding the limitations of these devices is therefore critical. In this study, the sensitivity and resolution of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom combination was comprehensively characterized for use in dynamic sliding window IMRT and RapidArc verification. Measurement comparisons were made between single acquisition and a multiple merged acquisition techniques to improve the effective resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY, as well as comparisons against GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film and electronic portal imaging dosimetry (EPID). The sensitivity and resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY was tested using two gantry angle 0° modulated test fields. Deliberate multileaf collimator (MLC) errors of 1, 2, and 5 mm and collimator rotation errors were inserted into IMRT and RapidArc plans for pelvis and head & neck sites, to test sensitivity to errors. The radiobiological impact of these errors was assessed to determine the gamma index passing criteria to be used with the 2D‐ARRAY to detect clinically relevant errors. For gamma index distributions, it was found that the 2D‐ARRAY in single acquisition mode was comparable to multiple acquisition modes, as well as film and EPID. It was found that the commonly used gamma index criteria of 3% dose difference or 3 mm distance to agreement may potentially mask clinically relevant errors. Gamma index criteria of 3%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 98%, or 2%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 95%, were found to be more sensitive. We suggest that the gamma index passing thresholds may be used for guidance, but also should be combined with a visual inspection of the gamma index distribution and calculation of the dose difference to assess whether there may be a clinical impact in failed regions. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5714639/ /pubmed/24257288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460 Text en © 2013 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
Hussein, Mohammad
Adams, Elizabeth J.
Jordan, Thomas J.
Clark, Catharine H.
Nisbet, Andrew
A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title_full A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title_fullStr A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title_full_unstemmed A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title_short A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
title_sort critical evaluation of the ptw 2d‐array seven29 and octavius ii phantom for imrt and vmat verification
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460
work_keys_str_mv AT husseinmohammad acriticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT adamselizabethj acriticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT jordanthomasj acriticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT clarkcatharineh acriticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT nisbetandrew acriticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT husseinmohammad criticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT adamselizabethj criticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT jordanthomasj criticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT clarkcatharineh criticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification
AT nisbetandrew criticalevaluationoftheptw2darrayseven29andoctaviusiiphantomforimrtandvmatverification