10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      EPID based in vivo dosimetry system: clinical experience and results

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mandatory in several countries, in vivo dosimetry has been recognized as one of the next milestones in radiation oncology. Our department has implemented clinically an EPID based in vivo dosimetry system, EPIgray, by DOSISOFT S.A., since 2006. An analysis of the measurements per linac and energy over a two‐year period was performed, which included a more detailed examination per technique and treatment site over a six‐month period. A comparison of the treatment planning system doses and the doses estimated by EPIgray shows a mean of the differences of 1.9% ( ± 5.2 % ) for the two‐year period. The 3D conformal treatment plans had a mean dose difference of 2.0% ( ± 4.9 % ), while for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy treatments the mean dose difference was 3.0 ( ± 5.3 % ) and 2.5 ( ± 5.2 % ), respectively. In addition, root cause analyses were conducted on the in vivo dosimetry measurements of two breast cancer treatment techniques, as well as prostate treatments with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. During the breast study, the dose differences of breast treatments in supine position were correlated to patient setup and EPID positioning errors. Based on these observations, an automatic image shift correction algorithm is developed by DOSIsoft S.A. The prostate study revealed that beams and arcs with out‐of‐tolerance in vivo dosimetry results tend to have more complex modulation and a lower exposure of the points of interest. The statistical studies indicate that in vivo dosimetry with EPIgray has been successfully implemented for classical and complex techniques in clinical routine at our institution. The additional breast and prostate studies exhibit the prospects of EPIgray as an easy supplementary quality assurance tool. The validation, the automatization, and the reduction of false‐positive results represent an important step toward adaptive radiotherapy with EPIgray.

          PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability.

            To evaluate the utility of a new complexity metric, the modulation complexity score (MCS), in the treatment planning and quality assurance processes and to evaluate the relationship of the metric with deliverability. A multisite (breast, rectum, prostate, prostate bed, lung, and head and neck) and site-specific (lung) dosimetric evaluation has been completed. The MCS was calculated for each beam and the overall treatment plan. A 2D diode array (MapCHECK, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) was used to acquire measurements for each beam. The measured and planned dose (PINNACLE3, Phillips, Madison, WI) was evaluated using different percent differences and distance to agreement (DTA) criteria (3%/ 3 mm and 2%/ 1 mm) and the relationship between the dosimetric results and complexity (as measured by the MCS or simple beam parameters) assessed. For the multisite analysis (243 plans total), the mean MCS scores for each treatment site were breast (0.92), rectum (0.858), prostate (0.837), prostate bed (0.652), lung (0.631), and head and neck (0.356). The MCS allowed for compilation of treatment site-specific statistics, which is useful for comparing different techniques, as well as for comparison of individual treatment plans with the typical complexity levels. For the six plans selected for dosimetry, the average diode percent pass rate was 98.7% (minimum of 96%) for 3%/3 mm evaluation criteria. The average difference in absolute dose measurement between the planned and measured dose was 1.7 cGy. The detailed lung analysis also showed excellent agreement between the measured and planned dose, as all beams had a diode percentage pass rate for 3%/3 mm criteria of greater than 95.9%, with an average pass rate of 99.0%. The average absolute maximum dose difference for the lung plans was 0.7 cGy. There was no direct correlation between the MCS and simple beam parameters which could be used as a surrogate for complexity level (i.e., number of segments or MU). An evaluation criterion of 2%/ 1 mm reliably allowed for the identification of beams that are dosimetrically robust. In this study we defined a robust beam or plan as one that maintained a diode percentage pass rate greater than 90% at 2%/ 1 mm, indicating delivery that was deemed accurate when compared to the planned dose, even under stricter evaluation criterion. MCS and MU threshold criteria were determined by defining a required specificity of 1.0. A MCS threshold of 0.8 allowed for identification of robust deliverability with a sensitivity of 0.36. In contrast, MU had a lower sensitivity of 0.23 for a threshold of 50 MU. The MCS allows for a quantitative assessment of plan complexity, on a fixed scale, that can be applied to all treatment sites and can provide more information related to dose delivery than simple beam parameters. This could prove useful throughout the entire treatment planning and QA process.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

              To evaluate the effect of plan parameters on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetric accuracy, together with the possibility of scoring plan complexity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pascal.francois@chu-poitiers.fr
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                08 May 2016
                May 2016
                : 17
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2016.17.issue-3 )
                : 262-276
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Medical Physics Department Institut Curie Paris France
                [ 2 ] Medical Physics Department CHU de Poitiers Poitiers France
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] aCorresponding author: Pascal Francois, Service de Physique Médicale, CHU de Poitiers, 2 rue de la Milétrie, Poitiers, 86021, France; phone: (33) 5 49 44 44 44; fax: (33) 5 49 44 39 80; email: pascal.francois@ 123456chu-poitiers.fr

                Article
                ACM20262
                10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6070
                5690938
                27167283
                ead184e8-d7ee-4195-af29-d57fbc663fb0
                © 2016 The Authors.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 September 2015
                : 21 January 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 6, References: 29, Pages: 15, Words: 6674
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20262
                May 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                in vivo dosimetry,epid,epigray,quality assurance
                in vivo dosimetry, epid, epigray, quality assurance

                Comments

                Comment on this article