Cargando…
EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems
This study compares the EPID dosimetry algorithms of two commercial systems for pretreatment QA, and analyzes dosimetric measurements made with each system alongside the results obtained with a standard diode array. 126 IMRT fields are examined with both EPID dosimetry systems (EPIDose by Sun Nuclea...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3736 |
_version_ | 1783283959859249152 |
---|---|
author | Bailey, Daniel W. Kumaraswamy, Lalith Bakhtiari, Mohammad Malhotra, Harish K. Podgorsak, Matthew B. |
author_facet | Bailey, Daniel W. Kumaraswamy, Lalith Bakhtiari, Mohammad Malhotra, Harish K. Podgorsak, Matthew B. |
author_sort | Bailey, Daniel W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study compares the EPID dosimetry algorithms of two commercial systems for pretreatment QA, and analyzes dosimetric measurements made with each system alongside the results obtained with a standard diode array. 126 IMRT fields are examined with both EPID dosimetry systems (EPIDose by Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne FL, and Portal Dosimetry by Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA) and the diode array, MapCHECK (also by Sun Nuclear Corporation). Twenty‐six VMAT arcs of varying modulation complexity are examined with the EPIDose and MapCHECK systems. Optimization and commissioning testing of the EPIDose physics model is detailed. Each EPID IMRT QA system is tested for sensitivity to critical TPS beam model errors. Absolute dose gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm, 10% threshold, global normalization to the maximum measured dose) yields similar results (within 1%–2%) for all three dosimetry modalities, except in the case of off‐axis breast tangents. For these off‐axis fields, the Portal Dosimetry system does not adequately model EPID response, though a previously‐published correction algorithm improves performance. Both MapCHECK and EPIDose are found to yield good results for VMAT QA, though limitations are discussed. Both the Portal Dosimetry and EPIDose algorithms, though distinctly different, yield similar results for the majority of clinical IMRT cases, in close agreement with a standard diode array. Portal dose image prediction may overlook errors in beam modeling beyond the calculation of the actual fluence, while MapCHECK and EPIDose include verification of the dose calculation algorithm, albeit in simplified phantom conditions (and with limited data density in the case of the MapCHECK detector). Unlike the commercial Portal Dosimetry package, the EPIDose algorithm (when sufficiently optimized) allows accurate analysis of EPID response for off‐axis, asymmetric fields, and for orthogonal VMAT QA. Other forms of QA are necessary to supplement the limitations of the Portal Vision Dosimetry system. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5716510 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57165102018-04-02 EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems Bailey, Daniel W. Kumaraswamy, Lalith Bakhtiari, Mohammad Malhotra, Harish K. Podgorsak, Matthew B. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study compares the EPID dosimetry algorithms of two commercial systems for pretreatment QA, and analyzes dosimetric measurements made with each system alongside the results obtained with a standard diode array. 126 IMRT fields are examined with both EPID dosimetry systems (EPIDose by Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne FL, and Portal Dosimetry by Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA) and the diode array, MapCHECK (also by Sun Nuclear Corporation). Twenty‐six VMAT arcs of varying modulation complexity are examined with the EPIDose and MapCHECK systems. Optimization and commissioning testing of the EPIDose physics model is detailed. Each EPID IMRT QA system is tested for sensitivity to critical TPS beam model errors. Absolute dose gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm, 10% threshold, global normalization to the maximum measured dose) yields similar results (within 1%–2%) for all three dosimetry modalities, except in the case of off‐axis breast tangents. For these off‐axis fields, the Portal Dosimetry system does not adequately model EPID response, though a previously‐published correction algorithm improves performance. Both MapCHECK and EPIDose are found to yield good results for VMAT QA, though limitations are discussed. Both the Portal Dosimetry and EPIDose algorithms, though distinctly different, yield similar results for the majority of clinical IMRT cases, in close agreement with a standard diode array. Portal dose image prediction may overlook errors in beam modeling beyond the calculation of the actual fluence, while MapCHECK and EPIDose include verification of the dose calculation algorithm, albeit in simplified phantom conditions (and with limited data density in the case of the MapCHECK detector). Unlike the commercial Portal Dosimetry package, the EPIDose algorithm (when sufficiently optimized) allows accurate analysis of EPID response for off‐axis, asymmetric fields, and for orthogonal VMAT QA. Other forms of QA are necessary to supplement the limitations of the Portal Vision Dosimetry system. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2012-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5716510/ /pubmed/22766944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3736 Text en © 2012 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 Bailey, Daniel W. Kumaraswamy, Lalith Bakhtiari, Mohammad Malhotra, Harish K. Podgorsak, Matthew B. EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title | EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title_full | EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title_fullStr | EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title_full_unstemmed | EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title_short | EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
title_sort | epid dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716510/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766944 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3736 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baileydanielw epiddosimetryforpretreatmentqualityassurancewithtwocommercialsystems AT kumaraswamylalith epiddosimetryforpretreatmentqualityassurancewithtwocommercialsystems AT bakhtiarimohammad epiddosimetryforpretreatmentqualityassurancewithtwocommercialsystems AT malhotraharishk epiddosimetryforpretreatmentqualityassurancewithtwocommercialsystems AT podgorsakmatthewb epiddosimetryforpretreatmentqualityassurancewithtwocommercialsystems |