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
_version_ 1783371085870268416
author Chung, Eunah
Kwon, Dongyeol
Park, Taeyang
Kang, Hyeri
Chung, Yoonsun
author_facet Chung, Eunah
Kwon, Dongyeol
Park, Taeyang
Kang, Hyeri
Chung, Yoonsun
author_sort Chung, Eunah
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6236814
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62368142018-11-20 Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance Chung, Eunah Kwon, Dongyeol Park, Taeyang Kang, Hyeri Chung, Yoonsun J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6236814/ /pubmed/30354001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12480 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Chung, Eunah
Kwon, Dongyeol
Park, Taeyang
Kang, Hyeri
Chung, Yoonsun
Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title_full Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title_fullStr Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title_full_unstemmed Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title_short Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
title_sort clinical implementation of dosimetry check™ for tomotherapy(®) delivery quality assurance
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT chungeunah clinicalimplementationofdosimetrycheckfortomotherapydeliveryqualityassurance
AT kwondongyeol clinicalimplementationofdosimetrycheckfortomotherapydeliveryqualityassurance
AT parktaeyang clinicalimplementationofdosimetrycheckfortomotherapydeliveryqualityassurance
AT kanghyeri clinicalimplementationofdosimetrycheckfortomotherapydeliveryqualityassurance
AT chungyoonsun clinicalimplementationofdosimetrycheckfortomotherapydeliveryqualityassurance