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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |