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
  • [11] Density Scaling of Phantom Materials for a 3D Dose Verification System
    Tani, K.
    Fujita, Y.
    Wakita, A.
    Miyasaka, R.
    Uehara, R.
    Kawai, D.
    Suzuki, Y.
    Aikawa, A.
    Mizuno, N.
    Saitoh, H.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2892 - 2893
  • [12] Density scaling of phantom materials for a 3D dose verification system
    Tani, Kensuke
    Fujita, Yukio
    Wakita, Akihisa
    Miyasaka, Ryohei
    Uehara, Ryuzo
    Kodama, Takumi
    Suzuki, Yuya
    Aikawa, Ako
    Mizuno, Norifumi
    Kawamori, Jiro
    Saitoh, Hidetoshi
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 19 (04): : 103 - 113
  • [13] Dose Verification of 2D Synchronized DMLC IMRT Delivery to a Moving Target
    Xu, J.
    Papanikolaou, N.
    Shi, C.
    Jiang, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06)
  • [14] 3 D IMRT dose verification based on 2 D measurements with a chamber array
    Haering, R.
    Rhein, B.
    Klemm, S.
    Janisch, E.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2006, 81 : S459 - S459
  • [15] 3D dose reconstruction for clinical evaluation of IMRT pretreatment verification with an EPID
    van Zijtveld, Mathilda
    Dirkx, Maarten L. P.
    de Boer, Hans C. J.
    Heijmen, Ben J. M.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 82 (02) : 201 - 207
  • [16] On the Sensitivity of An EPID-Based 3D Dose Verification System to Detect Delivery Errors in VMAT Treatments
    Gonzalez, P.
    Olaciregui-Ruiz, I.
    Mijnheer, B.
    Mans, A.
    Rozendaal, R.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3633 - 3633
  • [17] Feasibility of RACT for 3D dose measurement and range verification in a water phantom
    Alsanea, Fahed
    Moskvin, Vadim
    Stantz, Keith M.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (02) : 937 - 946
  • [18] RATIONALE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 3D VERIFICATION FOR IMRT IN HEAD AND NECK - DETERMINATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF 2D VS 3D VERIFICATION METHODS
    Rolfo, M.
    Wada, M.
    Height, R.
    Zupan, E.
    Handley, M.
    Anderson, N.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 88 : S487 - S487
  • [19] Comparison of 2D and 3D Gamma calculations for an IMRT QA phantom
    Lafratta, R.
    Ibbott, G.
    Adamovics, J.
    Followill, D.
    8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 3D RADIATION DOSIMETRY (IC3DDOSE), 2015, 573
  • [20] 2D Dose Reconstruction by Artificial Neural Network for Pretreatment Verification of IMRT Fields
    Mahdavi, Seied Rabie
    Bakhshandeh, Mohsen
    Rostami, Aram
    Arfaee, Ali Jabbary
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION SCIENCES, 2018, 49 (03) : 286 - 292