Cargando…

Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA

For intensity‐modulated radiation therapy, evaluation of the measured dose against the treatment planning calculated dose is essential in the context of patient‐specific quality assurance. The complexity of volumetric arc radiotherapy delivery attributed to its dynamic and synchronization nature req...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chandraraj, Varatharaj, Stathakis, Sotirios, Manickam, Ravikumar, Esquivel, Carlos, Supe, Sanjay S., Papanikolaou, Nikos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21587184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3367
_version_ 1783284365567983616
author Chandraraj, Varatharaj
Stathakis, Sotirios
Manickam, Ravikumar
Esquivel, Carlos
Supe, Sanjay S.
Papanikolaou, Nikos
author_facet Chandraraj, Varatharaj
Stathakis, Sotirios
Manickam, Ravikumar
Esquivel, Carlos
Supe, Sanjay S.
Papanikolaou, Nikos
author_sort Chandraraj, Varatharaj
collection PubMed
description For intensity‐modulated radiation therapy, evaluation of the measured dose against the treatment planning calculated dose is essential in the context of patient‐specific quality assurance. The complexity of volumetric arc radiotherapy delivery attributed to its dynamic and synchronization nature require new methods and potentially new tools for the quality assurance of such techniques. In the present study, we evaluated and compared the dosimetric performance of EDR2 film and three other commercially available quality assurance devices: IBA I'MatriXX array, PTW Seven29 array and the Delta (4) array. The evaluation of these dosimetric systems was performed for RapidArc and IMRT deliveries using a Varian NovalisTX linear accelerator. The plans were generated using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that all four QA techniques yield equivalent results. All patient QAs passed our institutional clinical criteria of gamma index based on a 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement. In addition, the Bland‐Altman analysis was performed which showed that all the calculated gamma values of all three QA devices were within 5% from those of the film. The results showed that the four QA systems used in this patient‐specific IMRT QA analysis are equivalent. We concluded that the dosimetric systems under investigation can be used interchangeably for routine patient specific QA. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5718691
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57186912018-04-02 Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA Chandraraj, Varatharaj Stathakis, Sotirios Manickam, Ravikumar Esquivel, Carlos Supe, Sanjay S. Papanikolaou, Nikos J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics For intensity‐modulated radiation therapy, evaluation of the measured dose against the treatment planning calculated dose is essential in the context of patient‐specific quality assurance. The complexity of volumetric arc radiotherapy delivery attributed to its dynamic and synchronization nature require new methods and potentially new tools for the quality assurance of such techniques. In the present study, we evaluated and compared the dosimetric performance of EDR2 film and three other commercially available quality assurance devices: IBA I'MatriXX array, PTW Seven29 array and the Delta (4) array. The evaluation of these dosimetric systems was performed for RapidArc and IMRT deliveries using a Varian NovalisTX linear accelerator. The plans were generated using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. Our results showed that all four QA techniques yield equivalent results. All patient QAs passed our institutional clinical criteria of gamma index based on a 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement. In addition, the Bland‐Altman analysis was performed which showed that all the calculated gamma values of all three QA devices were within 5% from those of the film. The results showed that the four QA systems used in this patient‐specific IMRT QA analysis are equivalent. We concluded that the dosimetric systems under investigation can be used interchangeably for routine patient specific QA. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5718691/ /pubmed/21587184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3367 Text en © 2011 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (https://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
Chandraraj, Varatharaj
Stathakis, Sotirios
Manickam, Ravikumar
Esquivel, Carlos
Supe, Sanjay S.
Papanikolaou, Nikos
Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title_full Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title_fullStr Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title_short Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
title_sort comparison of four commercial devices for rapidarc and sliding window imrt qa
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21587184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3367
work_keys_str_mv AT chandrarajvaratharaj comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa
AT stathakissotirios comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa
AT manickamravikumar comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa
AT esquivelcarlos comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa
AT supesanjays comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa
AT papanikolaounikos comparisonoffourcommercialdevicesforrapidarcandslidingwindowimrtqa