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
  • [31] Approach to 3D dose verification by utilizing autoactivation
    Nakajima, Yasunori
    Kohno, Toshiyuki
    Inaniwa, Taku
    Sato, Shinji
    Yoshida, Eiji
    Yamaya, Taiga
    Tsuruta, Yuki
    Sihver, Lembit
    NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, 2011, 648 : S119 - S121
  • [32] Development of a 3D dynamic verification phantom for 4DCT and IMRT
    Hubenschmidt, J
    Parikh, P
    Low, D
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (06) : 1822 - 1822
  • [33] Clinical experience with Mobius FX software for 3D dose verification for prostate VMAT plans and comparison with physical measurements
    Vazquez-Quino, L. A.
    Huerta-Hernandez, C. I.
    Rangaraj, D.
    9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 3D RADIATION DOSIMETRY, 2017, 847
  • [34] 3D Dose Verification for Highly Modulated Treatments Using a Transmission Detector Array
    Manohar, N.
    Rosenfield, J.
    Elder, E.
    Dhabaan, A.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2895 - 2896
  • [35] Investigation of a MOSFET dosimetry system for midpoint dose verification in prostate 3D CRT/IMRT
    Wiese, T.
    Bezak, E.
    Nelligan, R.
    AUSTRALASIAN PHYSICAL & ENGINEERING SCIENCES IN MEDICINE, 2008, 31 (03) : 180 - 190
  • [36] Characterization of An Independent 3D Dose and MU Verification Software for Lung SBRT Treatments
    Baltz, G.
    Manigold, R.
    Kirsner, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E432 - E432
  • [37] In Vivo 3D Dose Verification for IMRT Using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID)
    Chang, C.
    Anderson, N. G.
    Zhu, T. C.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (06)
  • [38] Investigation of a MOSFET dosimetry system for midpoint dose verification in prostate 3D CRT/IMRT
    T. Wiese
    E. Bezak
    R. Nelligan
    Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 2008, 31 : 180 - 190
  • [39] 3D DOSE VERIFICATION FOR LUNG CANCER TREATMENTS BY IN AQUA VIVO EPID DOSIMETRY
    Wendling, M.
    McDermott, L.
    Mans, A.
    Sonke, J. J.
    van Herk, M.
    Mijnheer, B.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 88 : S160 - S160
  • [40] An investigation of PRESAGE® 3D dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT radiation therapy treatment verification
    Jackson, Jake
    Juang, Titania
    Adamovics, John
    Oldham, Mark
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2015, 60 (06): : 2217 - 2230