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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bailey, Daniel W., Kumaraswamy, Lalith, Bakhtiari, Mohammad, Malhotra, Harish K., Podgorsak, Matthew B.
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