Cargando…
Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to compare the results of gamma value based film analysis according to the used type of self-developer film and software product. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The films were irradiated with different treatment techniques such as 3D conformal and intensity modulate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sciendo
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32889796 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0049 |
_version_ | 1783599766799646720 |
---|---|
author | Pócza, Tamás Zongor, Zsuzsánna Melles-Bencsik, Barbara Tatai-Szabó, Dóra Zita Major, Tibor Pesznyák, Csilla |
author_facet | Pócza, Tamás Zongor, Zsuzsánna Melles-Bencsik, Barbara Tatai-Szabó, Dóra Zita Major, Tibor Pesznyák, Csilla |
author_sort | Pócza, Tamás |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to compare the results of gamma value based film analysis according to the used type of self-developer film and software product. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The films were irradiated with different treatment techniques such as 3D conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy with static and rotational delivery. Stereotactic plans with conformal and intensity modulated arc techniques, using coplanar and non-coplanar beam setup were also evaluated. The data of irradiated film were compared with the planned planar dose distribution exported from the treatment planning system. Three film analysis software programs were evaluated: PTW Mephysto (PTW), FilmQA Pro (FQP) and radiohromic.com(RC). Both EBT2 and EBT3 types of films were examined. The comparisons of dose distributions were performed with gamma analysis using 10% cut-off level. RESULTS: The results of the gamma analysis for larger fields were between 78.3% and 98.3%, 75.7% and 100%, 80.2% and 98.8% with PTW, FQP and RC, respectively. The results of evaluation in case of stereotactic measurements were 76.8%–99.2% for PTW, 95.7%–100% for FQP and 91.2%–99.9% for RC. CONCLUSIONS: All the three software programs are suitable for calibrating and evaluating films, performing gamma analysis, and can be used for patient specific quality assurance measurements. There is no direct connection between gamma passing rate and absolute accuracy or software quality, it is just a feature of the software. The interpretation of own results has to be defined on an institutional level according to given workflow and preliminary results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7585333 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Sciendo |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75853332020-12-01 Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy Pócza, Tamás Zongor, Zsuzsánna Melles-Bencsik, Barbara Tatai-Szabó, Dóra Zita Major, Tibor Pesznyák, Csilla Radiol Oncol Research Article INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to compare the results of gamma value based film analysis according to the used type of self-developer film and software product. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The films were irradiated with different treatment techniques such as 3D conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy with static and rotational delivery. Stereotactic plans with conformal and intensity modulated arc techniques, using coplanar and non-coplanar beam setup were also evaluated. The data of irradiated film were compared with the planned planar dose distribution exported from the treatment planning system. Three film analysis software programs were evaluated: PTW Mephysto (PTW), FilmQA Pro (FQP) and radiohromic.com(RC). Both EBT2 and EBT3 types of films were examined. The comparisons of dose distributions were performed with gamma analysis using 10% cut-off level. RESULTS: The results of the gamma analysis for larger fields were between 78.3% and 98.3%, 75.7% and 100%, 80.2% and 98.8% with PTW, FQP and RC, respectively. The results of evaluation in case of stereotactic measurements were 76.8%–99.2% for PTW, 95.7%–100% for FQP and 91.2%–99.9% for RC. CONCLUSIONS: All the three software programs are suitable for calibrating and evaluating films, performing gamma analysis, and can be used for patient specific quality assurance measurements. There is no direct connection between gamma passing rate and absolute accuracy or software quality, it is just a feature of the software. The interpretation of own results has to be defined on an institutional level according to given workflow and preliminary results. Sciendo 2020-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7585333/ /pubmed/32889796 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0049 Text en © 2020 Tamás Pócza, Zsuzsánna Zongor, Barbara Melles-Bencsik, Dóra Zita Tatai-Szabó, Tibor Major, Csilla Pesznyák, published by Sciendo http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pócza, Tamás Zongor, Zsuzsánna Melles-Bencsik, Barbara Tatai-Szabó, Dóra Zita Major, Tibor Pesznyák, Csilla Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title | Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title_full | Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title_short | Comparison of Three Film Analysis Softwares Using EBT2 and EBT3 Films in Radiotherapy |
title_sort | comparison of three film analysis softwares using ebt2 and ebt3 films in radiotherapy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32889796 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0049 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT poczatamas comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy AT zongorzsuzsanna comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy AT mellesbencsikbarbara comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy AT tataiszabodorazita comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy AT majortibor comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy AT pesznyakcsilla comparisonofthreefilmanalysissoftwaresusingebt2andebt3filmsinradiotherapy |