Comparison of 3D anatomical dose verification and 2D phantom dose verification of IMRT/VMAT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

被引:10
|
作者
Lin H. [1 ,2 ]
Huang S. [1 ]
Deng X. [1 ]
Zhu J. [1 ,3 ]
Chen L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
[2] Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital of the Ministry of Health
[3] School of Physics and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University
关键词
2D phantom dose; 3D anatomical dose; Dosimetry verification; IMRT; VMAT;
D O I
10.1186/1748-717X-9-71
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The two-dimensional phantom dose verification (2D-PDV) using hybrid plan and planar dose measurement has been widely used for IMRT treatment QA. Due to the lack of information about the correlations between the verification results and the anatomical structure of patients, it is inadequate in clinical evaluation. A three-dimensional anatomical dose verification (3D-ADV) method was used in this study to evaluate the IMRT/VMAT treatment delivery for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and comparison with 2D-PDV was analyzed.Methods: Twenty nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with IMRT/VMAT were recruited in the study. A 2D ion-chamber array was used for the 2D-PDV in both single-gantry-angle composite (SGAC) and multi-gantry-angle composite (MGAC) verifications. Differences in the gamma pass rate between the 2 verification methods were assessed. Based on measurement of irradiation dose fluence, the 3D dose distribution was reconstructed for 3D-ADV in the above cases. The reconstructed dose homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) were calculated. Gamma pass rate and deviations in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of each PTV and organ at risk (OAR) were analyzed.Results: In 2D-PDV, the gamma pass rate (3%, 3 mm) of SGAC (99.55% ± 0.83%) was significantly higher than that of MGAC (92.41% ± 7.19%). In 3D-ADV, the gamma pass rates (3%, 3 mm) were 99.75% ± 0.21% in global, 83.82% ± 16.98% to 93.71% ± 6.22% in the PTVs and 45.12% ± 32.78% to 98.08% ± 2.29% in the OARs. The maximum HI increment in PTVnx was 19.34%, while the maximum CI decrement in PTV1 and PTV2 were -32.45% and -6.93%, respectively. Deviations in dose volume of PTVs were all within ±5%. D2% of the brainstem, spinal cord, left/right optic nerves, and the mean doses to the left/right parotid glands maximally increased by 3.5%, 6.03%, 31.13%/26.90% and 4.78%/4.54%, respectively.Conclusion: The 2D-PDV and global gamma pass rate might be insufficient to provide an accurate assessment for the complex NPC IMRT operation. In contrast, the 3D-ADV is superior in clinic-related quality assurance offering evaluation of organ specific pass rate and dose-volume deviations. © 2014 Lin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Online 3D dose verification for VMAT treatments
    Spreeuw, H.
    Rozendaal, R.
    Olaciregui-Ruiz, I.
    Mans, A.
    Mijnheer, B.
    Van Herk, M.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S229 - S230
  • [2] FROM 2D TO 3D DOSE EVALUATION FOR IN VIVO IMRT VERIFICATION
    Camargo, P.
    Rozendaal, R.
    Joep, S.
    Sonke, J. J.
    van Herk, M.
    Mijnheer, B.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 99 : S214 - S214
  • [3] 3D "IN VIVO" DOSE VERIFICATION OF IMRT TREATMENTS USING A TRANSMISSION DETECTOR
    Ostinelli, A.
    Monti, A. F.
    Gelosa, S.
    Berlusconi, C.
    Scandolaro, L.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2009, 92 : S229 - S230
  • [4] Clinical Results of 3D in Vivo Dose Verification of VMAT
    Mijnheer, B.
    Olaciregui-Ruiz, I.
    Rozendaal, R.
    Sonke, J.
    Stroom, J.
    Tielenburg, R.
    van Herk, M.
    Vijlbrief, R.
    Mans, A.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (06) : 3783 - 3783
  • [5] Dose Calculation Grid for 3D Dose Verification of VMAT Using Rotating 2D Array of Finite-Size Detectors
    Saito, A.
    Nakashima, T.
    Okumura, T.
    Aita, M.
    Hioki, K.
    Kawahara, D.
    Masuda, H.
    Miki, K.
    Mori, M.
    Naito, K.
    Ochi, Y.
    Tsubouchi, K.
    Ohno, Y.
    Nagata, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E282 - E282
  • [6] A simple 3D dose verification method for patient IMRT QA using measured 2D dose distributions and a projection algorithm
    Audet, C
    Poffenbarger, B
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2004, 73 : S420 - S420
  • [7] Evaluation of a 2D array planar dose verification system for IMRT dose delivery
    Malhotra, H. K.
    Liu, J.
    Tran, T.
    Podgorsak, M. B.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (03): : S729 - S729
  • [8] Principles of 3D dose verification based on 2D epid measurements
    McDermott, L.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S5 - S5
  • [9] 3-D dose and anatomy verification for IMRT
    Yin, F
    Kim, J
    Guan, H
    Kim, J
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (06) : 1316 - 1316
  • [10] 3D dose verification of VMAT lung SBRT using Mobius3D
    Loo, M. Van Het
    Welleweerd, J.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2015, 115 : S423 - S424