Cargando…

Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance

PURPOSE: The delivery quality assurance (DQA) of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is a prerequisite for ensuring patient treatments. This work investigated the clinical usefulness of a new DQA system, Dosimetry Check™(DC), on TomoTherapy(®)‐based helical IMRT plans. METHODS: The DQA was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chung, Eunah, Kwon, Dongyeol, Park, Taeyang, Kang, Hyeri, Chung, Yoonsun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6236814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30354001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12480
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The delivery quality assurance (DQA) of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is a prerequisite for ensuring patient treatments. This work investigated the clinical usefulness of a new DQA system, Dosimetry Check™(DC), on TomoTherapy(®)‐based helical IMRT plans. METHODS: The DQA was performed for 15 different TomoTherapy(®)‐based clinical treatment plans. In Tomotherapy(®) machines, the couch position was set to a height of 400 mm and the treatment plans were delivered using QA‐Treatment mode. For each treatment plan, the plan data and measured beam fluence were transferred to a DC‐installed computer. Then, DC reconstructed the three‐dimensional (3D) dose distribution to the CT images of the patient. The reconstructed dose distribution was compared with that of the original plan in terms of absolute dose, two‐dimensional (2D) planes and 3D volume. The DQA results were compared with those performed by a conventional method using the cheese phantom with ion chamber and radiochromic film. RESULTS: For 14 out of the 15 treatment plans, the absolute dose difference between the measurement and calculation was less than 3% and the gamma pass rate with the 3%/3 mm gamma evaluation criteria was greater than 95% for both DQA methods. The P‐value calculated using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was 0.256, which implies no statistically significance in determining the absolute dose difference between the two methods. For one treatment plan generated using the 5.0 cm field width, the absolute dose difference was greater than 3% and the gamma pass rate was less than 95% with DC, while the DQA result with the cheese phantom method passed our TomoTherapy(®) DQA tolerance. CONCLUSION: We have clinically implemented DC for the DQA of TomoTherapy(®)‐based helical IMRT treatment plans. DC carried out the accurate DQA results as performed with the conventional cheese phantom method. This new DQA system provided more information in verifying the dose delivery to patients, while simplifying the DQA process.