9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Breast in vivo dosimetry by EPID

      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

          An electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is an effective detector for in vivo transit dosimetry. In fact, it supplies two‐dimensional information, does not require special efforts to be used during patient treatment, and can supply data in real time. In the present paper, a new procedure has been proposed to improve the EPID in vivo dosimetry accuracy by taking into account the patient setup variations. The procedure was applied to the breast tangential irradiation for the reconstruction of the dose at the breast midpoint, D m . In particular, the patient setup variations were accounted for by comparing EPID images versus digitally reconstructed radiographies. In this manner, EPID transit signals were obtained corresponding to the geometrical projections of the breast midpoint on the EPID for each therapy session. At the end, the ratios R between D m and the doses computed by the treatment planning system (TPS) at breast midpoints, D m , TPS , were determined for 800 therapy sessions of 20 patients. Taking into account the method uncertainty, tolerance levels equal to ± 5 % have been determined for the ratio R.

          The improvement of in vivo dosimetry results obtained (taking into account patient misalignment) has been pointed out comparing the R values obtained with and without considering patient setup variations. In particular, when patient misalignments were taken into account, the R values were within ± 5 % for 93% of the checks; when patient setup variations were not taken into account, the R values were within ± 5 % in 72% of the checks. This last result points out that the transit dosimetry method overestimates the dose discrepancies if patient setup variations are not taken into account for dose reconstruction. In this case, larger tolerance levels have to be adopted as a trade‐off between workload and ability to detect errors, with the drawback being that some errors (such as the ones in TPS implementation or in beam calibration) cannot be detected, limiting the in vivo dosimetry efficacy.

          The paper also reports preliminary results about the possibility of reconstructing a dose profile perpendicular to the beam central axis reaching from the apex to the lung and passing through the middle point of the breast by an algorithm, similar to the one used for dose reconstruction at breast midpoint. In particular, the results have shown an accuracy within ± 3 % for the dose profile reconstructed in the breast (excluding the interface regions) and an underestimation of the lung dose.

          PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

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

          The use of an aSi-based EPID for routine absolute dosimetric pre-treatment verification of dynamic IMRT fields.

          In parallel with the increased use of intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) fields in radiation therapy, flat panel amorphous silicon (aSi) detectors are becoming the standard for online portal imaging at the linear accelerator. In order to minimise the workload related to the quality assurance of the IMRT fields, we have explored the possibility of using a commercially available aSi portal imager for absolute dosimetric verification of the delivery of dynamic IMRT fields. We investigated the basic dosimetric characteristics of an aSi portal imager (aS500, Varian Medical Systems), using an acquisition mode especially developed for portal dose (PD) integration during delivery of a-static or dynamic-radiation field. Secondly, the dose calculation algorithm of a commercially available treatment planning system (Cadplan, Varian Medical Systems) was modified to allow prediction of the PD image, i.e. to compare the intended fluence distribution with the fluence distribution as actually delivered by the dynamic multileaf collimator. Absolute rather than relative dose prediction was applied. The PD image prediction was compared to the corresponding acquisition for several clinical IMRT fields by means of the gamma evaluation method. The acquisition mode is accurate in integrating all PD over a wide range of monitor units, provided detector saturation is avoided. Although the dose deposition behaviour in the portal image detector is not equivalent to the dose to water measurements, it is reproducible and self-consistent, lending itself to quality assurance measurements. Gamma evaluations of the predicted versus measured PD distribution were within the pre-defined acceptance criteria for all clinical IMRT fields, i.e. allowing a dose difference of 3% of the local field dose in combination with a distance to agreement of 3 mm.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Monte Carlo calculation of nine megavoltage photon beam spectra using the BEAM code.

            A recent paper analyzed the sensitivity to various simulation parameters of the Monte Carlo simulations of nine beams from three major manufacturers of commercial medical linear accelerators, ranging in energy from 4-25 MV. In this work the nine models are used: to calculate photon energy spectra and average energy distributions and compare them to those published by Mohan et al. [Med. Phys. 12, 592-597 (1985)]; to separate the spectra into primary and scatter components from the primary collimator, the flattening filter and the adjustable collimators; and to calculate the contaminant-electron fluence spectra and the electron contribution to the depth-dose curves. Notwithstanding the better precision of the calculated spectra, they are similar to those calculated by Mohan et al. The three photon spectra at 6 MV from the machines of three different manufacturers show differences in their shapes as well as in the efficiency of bremsstrahlung production in the corresponding target and filter combinations. The contribution of direct photons to the photon energy fluence in a 10 x 10 field varies between 92% and 97%, where the primary collimator contributes between 0.6% and 3.4% and the flattening filter contributes between 0.6% and 4.5% to the head-scatter energy fluence. The fluence of the contaminant electrons at 100 cm varies between 5 x 10(-9) and 2.4 x 10(-7) cm(-2) per incident electron on target, and the corresponding spectrum for each beam is relatively invariant inside a 10 x 10 cm2 field. On the surface the dose from electron contamination varies between 5.7% and 11% of maximum dose and, at the depth of maximum dose, between 0.16% and 2.5% of maximum dose. The photon component of the percentage depth-dose at 10 cm depth is compared with the general formula provided by AAPM's task group 51 and confirms the claimed accuracy of 2%.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              In vivo dosimetry during external photon beam radiotherapy.

              In this critical review of the current practice of patient dose verification, we first demonstrate that a high accuracy (about 1-2%, 1 SD) can be obtained. Accurate in vivo dosimetry is possible if diodes and thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), the main detector types in use for in vivo dosimetry, are carefully calibrated and the factors influencing their sensitivity are taken into account. Various methods and philosophies for applying patient dose verification are then evaluated: the measurement of each field for each fraction of each patient, a limited number of checks for all patients, or measurements of specific patient groups, for example, during total body irradiation (TBI) or conformal radiotherapy. The experience of a number of centers is then presented, providing information on the various types of errors detected by in vivo dosimetry, including their frequency and magnitude. From the results of recent studies it can be concluded that in centers having modern equipment with verification systems as well as comprehensive quality assurance (QA) programs, a systematic error larger than 5% in dose delivery is still present for 0.5-1% of the patient treatments. In other studies, a frequency of 3-10% of errors was observed for specific patient groups or when no verification system was present at the accelerator. These results were balanced against the additional manpower and other resources required for such a QA program. It could be concluded that patient dose verification should be an essential part of a QA program in a radiotherapy department, and plays a complementary role to treatment-sheet double checking. As the radiotherapy community makes the transition from the conventional two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) conformal and intensity modulated dose delivery, it is recommended that new treatment techniques be checked systematically for a few patients, and to perform in vivo dosimetry a few times for each patient for situations where errors in dose delivery should be minimized.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrea.fidanzio@rm.unicatt.it
                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
                02 September 2010
                Fall 2010
                : 11
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2010.11.issue-4 )
                : 249-262
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] U.O. di Fisica Sanitaria Policlinico Gemelli UCSC Roma Italy
                [ 2 ] Istituto di Fisica Università Cattolica del S. Cuore UCSC Roma Italy
                [ 3 ] U.O. di Radioterapia Policlinico Gemelli UCSC Roma Italy
                [ 4 ] U.O. di Fisica Sanitaria Centro di Ricerca ad Alta Tecnologia nelle Scienze Biomediche dell'Università Cattolica S. Cuore Campobasso Italy
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Corresponding author: Andrea Fidanzio, Istituto di Fisica Università Cattolica S. Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Roma, Italy; phone: +39‐6‐30154997; fax: 39‐6‐3058852; email: andrea.fidanzio@ 123456rm.unicatt.it
                Article
                ACM20249
                10.1120/jacmp.v11i4.3275
                5720411
                21081886
                166a5775-ba9b-4650-93d8-513a66a5d151
                © 2010 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
                : 03 February 2010
                : 11 June 2010
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, References: 28, Pages: 14, Words: 7320
                Categories
                Radiation Measurements
                Radiation Measurements
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20249
                Fall 2010
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                in vivo dosimetry,transit dosimetry,quality assurance in breast radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article