SU-E-T-576: Evaluation of Patient Specific VMAT QA Using Dynalog Files and Treatment Planning System

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part20) ◽  
pp. 360-360
Author(s):  
D Defoor ◽  
S Stathakis ◽  
P Mavroidis ◽  
N Papanikolaou
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific

Evaluating small field dosimetry with the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in the eclipse treatment planning system

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-364
Author(s):  
Sepideh Behinaein ◽  
Ernest Osei ◽  
Johnson Darko ◽  
Paule Charland ◽  
Dylan Bassi
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Water Phantom ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Small Fields ◽  
Dose Measurements ◽  
The Brain

AbstractBackground:An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.Materials and Methods:In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.Results:The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.Conclusion:In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Delta4DVH Anatomy in 3D Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 153303382094581
Author(s):  
Du Tang ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Xunzhang Dai ◽  
Ying Cao
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pencil Beam ◽  
Ion Chamber ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Gamma Passing Rate

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. Materials and Methods: Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated. Results: For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta4 geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients’ quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% ± 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta4 geometry was 99.6% ± 0.89%, 98.54% ± 1.60%, and 98.95% ± 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% ± 1.23% and 93.04% ± 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients’ geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta4 and patients’ geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients’ geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3°. Conclusions: The new Delta4DVH Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.

scholarly journals Feasibility of a Reusable Radiochromic Dosimeter

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (21) ◽  
pp. 9906
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Newton ◽  
Maxwell Recht ◽  
Joseph A. Hauger ◽  
Gabriel Segarra ◽  
Chase Inglett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Optical Density ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Radiochromic Dosimeter

The current practice for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) uses ion chambers or diode arrays primarily because of their ease of use and reliability. A standard routine compares the dose distribution measured in a phantom with the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system for the same experimental conditions. For the particular problems encountered in the treatment planning of complex radiotherapy techniques, such as small fields/segments and dynamic delivery systems, additional tests are required to verify the accuracy of dose calculations. The dose distribution verification should be throughout the total 3D dose distribution for a high dose gradient in a small, irradiated volume, instead of the standard practice of one to several planes with 2D radiochromic (GAFChromic) film. To address this issue, we have developed a 3D radiochromic dosimeter that improves the rigor of current QA techniques by providing high-resolution, complete 3D verification for a wide range of clinical applications. The dosimeter is composed of polyurethane, a radical initiator, and a leuco dye, which is radiolytically oxidized to a dye absorbing at 633 nm. Since this chemical dosimeter is single-use, it represents a significant expense. The purpose of this research is to develop a cost-effective reusable dosimeter formulation. Based on prior reusability studies, three promising dosimeter formulations were studied using small volume optical cuvettes and irradiated to known clinically relevant doses of 0.5–10 Gy. After irradiation, the change in optical density was measured in a spectrophotometer. All three formulations retained linearity of optical density response to radiation upon re-irradiations. However, only one formulation retained dose sensitivity upon at least five re-irradiations, making it ideal for further evaluation as a 3D dosimeter.

Clinical experience using Delta 4 phantom for pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance in modern radiotherapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 210-214
Author(s):  
R. P. Srivastava ◽  
C. De Wagter
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Dose Distributions ◽  
Gamma Index ◽  
Calculated Dose ◽  
Treatment Plans

AbstractPurposeIn advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the quality assurance (QA) process is essential. The aim of the study was to assure the treatment planning dose delivered during delivery of complex treatment plans. The QA standard is to perform patient-specific comparisons between planned doses and doses measured in a phantom.Materials and methodThe Delta 4 phantom (Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden) has been used in this study. This device consists of diode matrices in two orthogonal planes inserted in a cylindrical acrylic phantom. Each diode is sampled per beam pulse so that the dose distribution can be evaluated on segment-by-segment, beam-by-beam, or as a composite plan from a single set of measurements. Ninety-five simple and complex radiotherapy treatment plans for different pathologies, planned using a treatment planning system (TPS) were delivered to the QA device. The planned and measured dose distributions were then compared and analysed. The gamma index was determined for different pathologies.ResultsThe evaluation was performed in terms of dose deviation, distance to agreement and gamma index passing rate. The measurements were in excellent agreement between with the calculated dose of the TPS and the QA device. Overall, good agreement was observed between measured and calculated doses in most cases with gamma values above 1 in >95% of measured points. Plan results for each test met the recommended dose goals.ConclusionThe delivery of IMRT and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans was verified to correspond well with calculated dose distributions for different pathologies. We found the Delta 4 device is accurate and reproducible. Although Delta4 appears to be a straightforward device for measuring dose and allows measure in real-time dosimetry QA, it is a complex device and careful quality control is required before its use.

SU-FF-T-337: Patient-Specific Treatment Planning System for BNCT Based On Dose Calculation Using MCNP

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (6Part12) ◽  
pp. 2479-2479 ◽  
Author(s):  
S H Jung ◽  
S Y Kim ◽  
S H Park ◽  
J K Kim ◽  
I S Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document