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
  • [21] 3D Absorbed Dose Reconstructed in the Patient from EPID Images for IMRT and VMAT Treatments
    Younan, Fouad
    Mazurier, Jocelyne
    Chatrie, Frederic
    Barbeiro, Ana Rita
    Berry, Isabelle
    Franck, Denis
    Franceries, Xavier
    WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2018, VOL 3, 2019, 68 (03): : 605 - 609
  • [22] 3D dose reconstruction in the patient from VARIAN EPID images for IMRT and VMAT treatments
    Younan, F.
    Mazurier, J.
    Franceries, X.
    Franck, D.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S932 - S932
  • [23] 3D patient dose reconstruction for clinical evaluation of IMRT pretreatment verification with an EPID
    van Zijtveld, M
    Dirkx, M
    de Boer, H
    Heijmen, B
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2005, 76 : S42 - S42
  • [24] 3D dose verification for stereotactic lung and spine treatments using the EPID
    McCowan, Peter
    vanBeek, Timothy
    van Uytven, Eric
    McCurdy, Boyd
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (08) : 4390 - 4390
  • [25] In-phantom dose verification of prostate IMRT and VMAT deliveries using plastic scintillation detectors
    Klein, David
    Briere, Tina Marie
    Kudchadker, Rajat
    Archambault, Louis
    Beaulieu, Luc
    Lee, Andrew
    Beddar, Sam
    RADIATION MEASUREMENTS, 2012, 47 (10) : 921 - 929
  • [26] Preclinical dose verification using a 3D printed mouse phantom for radiobiology experiments
    Esplen, Nolan
    Therriault-Proulx, Francois
    Beaulieu, Luc
    Bazalova-Carter, Magdalena
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (11) : 5294 - 5303
  • [27] 2D and 3D dose verification for a gated irradiation on a 0.35 T MR-LINAC
    Mann, P.
    Spindeldreier, K.
    Echner, G.
    Klueter, S.
    Karger, C.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 133 : S1075 - S1075
  • [28] VMAT lung SBRT: 3D evaluation in pretreatment patient QA and in vivo dose verification
    Villaggi, E.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 119 : S744 - S744
  • [29] IMRT dose verification with 2D ion chamber arrays:: Performance in the light of the Nyquist theorem
    Poppe, B.
    Djouguela, A.
    Willborn, K.
    Ruehmann, A.
    Harder, D.
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2007, 183 : 32 - 32
  • [30] A software tool for 3D dose verification and analysis
    Al Sa'd, M.
    Graham, J.
    Liney, G. P.
    7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 3D RADIATION DOSIMETRY (IC3DDOSE), 2013, 444