Cargando…

Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac

PURPOSE: The magnetic field can cause a nonnegligible dosimetric effect in an MR‐Linac system. This effect should be accurately accounted for by the beam models in treatment planning systems (TPS). The purpose of the study was to verify the beam model and the entire treatment planning and delivery p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Xinfeng, Paulson, Eric S., Ahunbay, Ergun, Sanli, Aydin, Klawikowski, Slade, Li, X. Allen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12651
_version_ 1783432933810372608
author Chen, Xinfeng
Paulson, Eric S.
Ahunbay, Ergun
Sanli, Aydin
Klawikowski, Slade
Li, X. Allen
author_facet Chen, Xinfeng
Paulson, Eric S.
Ahunbay, Ergun
Sanli, Aydin
Klawikowski, Slade
Li, X. Allen
author_sort Chen, Xinfeng
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The magnetic field can cause a nonnegligible dosimetric effect in an MR‐Linac system. This effect should be accurately accounted for by the beam models in treatment planning systems (TPS). The purpose of the study was to verify the beam model and the entire treatment planning and delivery process for a 1.5 T MR‐Linac based on comprehensive dosimetric measurements and end‐to‐end tests. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dosimetry measurements and end‐to‐end tests were performed on a preclinical MR‐Linac (Elekta AB) using a multitude of detectors and were compared to the corresponding beam model calculations from the TPS for the MR‐Linac. Measurement devices included ion chambers (IC), diamond detector, radiochromic film, and MR‐compatible ion chamber array and diode array. The dose in inhomogeneous phantom was also verified. The end‐to‐end tests include the generation, delivery, and comparison of 3D and IMRT plan with measurement. RESULTS: For the depth dose measurements with Farmer IC, micro IC and diamond detector, the absolute difference between most measurement points and beam model calculation beyond the buildup region were <1%, at most 2% for a few measurement points. For the beam profile measurements, the absolute differences were no more than 1% outside the penumbra region and no more than 2.5% inside the penumbra region. Results of end‐to‐end tests demonstrated that three 3D static plans with single 5 × 10 cm(2) fields (at gantry angle 0°, 90° and 270°) and two IMRT plans successfully passed gamma analysis with clinical criteria. The dose difference in the inhomogeneous phantom between the calculation and measurement was within 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Both relative and absolute dosimetry measurements agreed well with the TPS calculation, indicating that the beam model for MR‐Linac properly accounts for the magnetic field effect. The end‐to‐end tests verified the entire treatment planning process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6612768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66127682019-07-16 Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac Chen, Xinfeng Paulson, Eric S. Ahunbay, Ergun Sanli, Aydin Klawikowski, Slade Li, X. Allen J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: The magnetic field can cause a nonnegligible dosimetric effect in an MR‐Linac system. This effect should be accurately accounted for by the beam models in treatment planning systems (TPS). The purpose of the study was to verify the beam model and the entire treatment planning and delivery process for a 1.5 T MR‐Linac based on comprehensive dosimetric measurements and end‐to‐end tests. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dosimetry measurements and end‐to‐end tests were performed on a preclinical MR‐Linac (Elekta AB) using a multitude of detectors and were compared to the corresponding beam model calculations from the TPS for the MR‐Linac. Measurement devices included ion chambers (IC), diamond detector, radiochromic film, and MR‐compatible ion chamber array and diode array. The dose in inhomogeneous phantom was also verified. The end‐to‐end tests include the generation, delivery, and comparison of 3D and IMRT plan with measurement. RESULTS: For the depth dose measurements with Farmer IC, micro IC and diamond detector, the absolute difference between most measurement points and beam model calculation beyond the buildup region were <1%, at most 2% for a few measurement points. For the beam profile measurements, the absolute differences were no more than 1% outside the penumbra region and no more than 2.5% inside the penumbra region. Results of end‐to‐end tests demonstrated that three 3D static plans with single 5 × 10 cm(2) fields (at gantry angle 0°, 90° and 270°) and two IMRT plans successfully passed gamma analysis with clinical criteria. The dose difference in the inhomogeneous phantom between the calculation and measurement was within 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Both relative and absolute dosimetry measurements agreed well with the TPS calculation, indicating that the beam model for MR‐Linac properly accounts for the magnetic field effect. The end‐to‐end tests verified the entire treatment planning process. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6612768/ /pubmed/31254376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12651 Text en © 2019 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
Chen, Xinfeng
Paulson, Eric S.
Ahunbay, Ergun
Sanli, Aydin
Klawikowski, Slade
Li, X. Allen
Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title_full Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title_fullStr Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title_full_unstemmed Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title_short Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac
title_sort measurement validation of treatment planning for a mr‐linac
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12651
work_keys_str_mv AT chenxinfeng measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac
AT paulsonerics measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac
AT ahunbayergun measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac
AT sanliaydin measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac
AT klawikowskislade measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac
AT lixallen measurementvalidationoftreatmentplanningforamrlinac