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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baek, Seung-Hyeop, Choi, Sang-Hyoun, Han, Moo-Jae, Cho, Gyu-Seok, Jang, Wonil, Kim, Jin-Sung, Kim, Kum-Bae
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