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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pócza, Tamás, Zongor, Zsuzsánna, Melles-Bencsik, Barbara, Tatai-Szabó, Dóra Zita, Major, Tibor, Pesznyák, Csilla
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