Cargando…

The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning

Recently, the developers of Eclipse have recommended the use of ionization chambers for all profile scanning, including for the modeling of VMAT and stereotactic applications. The purpose of this study is to show the clinical impact caused by the choice of detector with respect to its ability to acc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gersh, Jacob A., Best, Ryan C. M., Watts, Ronald J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4801
_version_ 1783310358185771008
author Gersh, Jacob A.
Best, Ryan C. M.
Watts, Ronald J.
author_facet Gersh, Jacob A.
Best, Ryan C. M.
Watts, Ronald J.
author_sort Gersh, Jacob A.
collection PubMed
description Recently, the developers of Eclipse have recommended the use of ionization chambers for all profile scanning, including for the modeling of VMAT and stereotactic applications. The purpose of this study is to show the clinical impact caused by the choice of detector with respect to its ability to accurately measure dose in the penumbra and tail regions of a scanned profile. Using scan data acquired with several detectors, including an IBA CC13, a PTW 60012, and a Sun Nuclear EDGE Detector, three complete beam models are created, one for each respective detector. Next, using each beam model, dose volumes are retrospectively recalculated from actual anonymous patient plans. These plans include three full‐arc VMAT prostate plans, three left chest wall plans delivered using irregular compensators, two half‐arc VMAT lung plans, three MLC‐collimated static‐field pairs, and two SBRT liver plans. Finally, plans are reweighted to deliver the same number of monitor units, and mean dose‐to‐target volumes and organs at risk are calculated and compared. Penumbra width did not play a role. Dose in the tail region of the profile made the largest difference. By overresponding in the tail region of the profile, the 60012 diode detector scan data affected the beam model in such a way that target doses were reduced by as much as 0.4% (in comparison to CC13 and EDGE data). This overresponse also resulted in an overestimation of dose to peripheral critical structure, whose dose consisted mainly of scatter. This study shows that, for modeling the 6 MV beam of Acuros XB in Eclipse Version 11, the choice to use a CC13 scanning ion chamber or an EDGE Detector was an unimportant choice, providing nearly identical models in the treatment planning system. PACS number: 87.55.kh
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5875504
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58755042018-04-02 The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning Gersh, Jacob A. Best, Ryan C. M. Watts, Ronald J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Recently, the developers of Eclipse have recommended the use of ionization chambers for all profile scanning, including for the modeling of VMAT and stereotactic applications. The purpose of this study is to show the clinical impact caused by the choice of detector with respect to its ability to accurately measure dose in the penumbra and tail regions of a scanned profile. Using scan data acquired with several detectors, including an IBA CC13, a PTW 60012, and a Sun Nuclear EDGE Detector, three complete beam models are created, one for each respective detector. Next, using each beam model, dose volumes are retrospectively recalculated from actual anonymous patient plans. These plans include three full‐arc VMAT prostate plans, three left chest wall plans delivered using irregular compensators, two half‐arc VMAT lung plans, three MLC‐collimated static‐field pairs, and two SBRT liver plans. Finally, plans are reweighted to deliver the same number of monitor units, and mean dose‐to‐target volumes and organs at risk are calculated and compared. Penumbra width did not play a role. Dose in the tail region of the profile made the largest difference. By overresponding in the tail region of the profile, the 60012 diode detector scan data affected the beam model in such a way that target doses were reduced by as much as 0.4% (in comparison to CC13 and EDGE data). This overresponse also resulted in an overestimation of dose to peripheral critical structure, whose dose consisted mainly of scatter. This study shows that, for modeling the 6 MV beam of Acuros XB in Eclipse Version 11, the choice to use a CC13 scanning ion chamber or an EDGE Detector was an unimportant choice, providing nearly identical models in the treatment planning system. PACS number: 87.55.kh John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5875504/ /pubmed/25207408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4801 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the 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
Gersh, Jacob A.
Best, Ryan C. M.
Watts, Ronald J.
The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title_full The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title_fullStr The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title_full_unstemmed The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title_short The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
title_sort clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207408
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4801
work_keys_str_mv AT gershjacoba theclinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning
AT bestryancm theclinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning
AT wattsronaldj theclinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning
AT gershjacoba clinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning
AT bestryancm clinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning
AT wattsronaldj clinicalimpactofdetectorchoiceforbeamscanning