Cargando…
Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance
Pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is critical to prevent radiation accidents. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dose measurement tool with good resolution and a low volume-averaging effect. EPIbeam—an EPID-based portal dosimetry software—has been newly installed in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9694583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36431058 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life12111923 |
_version_ | 1784837836718997504 |
---|---|
author | Baek, Seung-Hyeop Choi, Sang-Hyoun Han, Moo-Jae Cho, Gyu-Seok Jang, Wonil Kim, Jin-Sung Kim, Kum-Bae |
author_facet | Baek, Seung-Hyeop Choi, Sang-Hyoun Han, Moo-Jae Cho, Gyu-Seok Jang, Wonil Kim, Jin-Sung Kim, Kum-Bae |
author_sort | Baek, Seung-Hyeop |
collection | PubMed |
description | Pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is critical to prevent radiation accidents. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dose measurement tool with good resolution and a low volume-averaging effect. EPIbeam—an EPID-based portal dosimetry software—has been newly installed in three institutions in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy of the EPID-based patient-specific QA tool versus the PTW729 detector (a previously used QA tool) based on gamma criteria and planning target volume (PTV). A significant difference was confirmed through the R statistical analysis software. The average gamma passing rates of PTW729 and EPIbeam were 98.73% and 99.60% on 3 mm/3% (local), 96.66% and 97.91% on 2 mm/2% (local), and 88.41% and 74.87% on 1 mm/1% (local), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.015 (3 mm/3%, local), 0.084 (2 mm/2%, local), and less than 0.01 (1 mm/1%, local). Further, the average gamma passing rates of PTW 729 and EPIbeam according to PTV size were 99.55% and 99.91% (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)) and 97.91% and 99.28% (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.087 (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)) and 0.036 (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)). These results confirm that EPIbeam can be an effective patient-specific QA tool. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9694583 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96945832022-11-26 Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Baek, Seung-Hyeop Choi, Sang-Hyoun Han, Moo-Jae Cho, Gyu-Seok Jang, Wonil Kim, Jin-Sung Kim, Kum-Bae Life (Basel) Article Pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is critical to prevent radiation accidents. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dose measurement tool with good resolution and a low volume-averaging effect. EPIbeam—an EPID-based portal dosimetry software—has been newly installed in three institutions in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy of the EPID-based patient-specific QA tool versus the PTW729 detector (a previously used QA tool) based on gamma criteria and planning target volume (PTV). A significant difference was confirmed through the R statistical analysis software. The average gamma passing rates of PTW729 and EPIbeam were 98.73% and 99.60% on 3 mm/3% (local), 96.66% and 97.91% on 2 mm/2% (local), and 88.41% and 74.87% on 1 mm/1% (local), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.015 (3 mm/3%, local), 0.084 (2 mm/2%, local), and less than 0.01 (1 mm/1%, local). Further, the average gamma passing rates of PTW 729 and EPIbeam according to PTV size were 99.55% and 99.91% (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)) and 97.91% and 99.28% (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.087 (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)) and 0.036 (PTV [Formula: see text] 150 cm(3)). These results confirm that EPIbeam can be an effective patient-specific QA tool. MDPI 2022-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9694583/ /pubmed/36431058 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life12111923 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Baek, Seung-Hyeop Choi, Sang-Hyoun Han, Moo-Jae Cho, Gyu-Seok Jang, Wonil Kim, Jin-Sung Kim, Kum-Bae Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title | Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title_full | Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title_fullStr | Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title_short | Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance |
title_sort | clinical efficacy of an electronic portal imaging device versus a physical phantom tool for patient-specific quality assurance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9694583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36431058 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life12111923 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baekseunghyeop clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT choisanghyoun clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT hanmoojae clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT chogyuseok clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT jangwonil clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT kimjinsung clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance AT kimkumbae clinicalefficacyofanelectronicportalimagingdeviceversusaphysicalphantomtoolforpatientspecificqualityassurance |