8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validation of a modern second‐check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

      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

          Purpose

          To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ ( MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system ( TPS), Varian Eclipse with the Acuros XB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

          Methods

          Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1 SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

          Results

          The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.

          Conclusion

          Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

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

          Dosimetric validation of Acuros XB with Monte Carlo methods for photon dose calculations.

          The dosimetric accuracy of the recently released Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) is investigated for single radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries, and a comparison is made to the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA). Ion chamber measurements for the 6 and 18 MV beams within a range of field sizes (from 4.0 x 4.0 to 30.0 x 30.0 cm2) are used to validate Acuros XB dose calculations within a unit density phantom. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB in the presence of lung, low-density lung, air, and bone is determined using BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculations as a benchmark. Calculations using the AAA are included for reference to a current superposition/convolution standard. Basic open field tests in a homogeneous phantom reveal an Acuros XB agreement with measurement to within +/- 1.9% in the inner field region for all field sizes and energies. Calculations on a heterogeneous interface phantom were found to agree with Monte Carlo calculations to within +/- 2.0% (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in lung (p = 0.24 g cm(-3)) and within +/- 2.9% (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in low-density lung (p = 0.1 g cm(-3)). In comparison, differences of up to 10.2% and 17.5% in lung and low-density lung were observed in the equivalent AAA calculations. Acuros XB dose calculations performed on a phantom containing an air cavity (p = 0.001 g cm(-3)) were found to be within the range of +/- 1.5% to +/- 4.5% of the BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculated benchmark (sigmaMC = 0.8%) in the tissue above and below the air cavity. A comparison of Acuros XB dose calculations performed on a lung CT dataset with a BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc benchmark shows agreement within +/- 2%/2mm and indicates that the remaining differences are primarily a result of differences in physical material assignments within a CT dataset. By considering the fundamental particle interactions in matter based on theoretical interaction cross sections, the Acuros XB algorithm is capable of modeling radiotherapy dose deposition with accuracy only previously achievable with Monte Carlo techniques.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114.

            The requirement of an independent verification of the monitor units (MU) or time calculated to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance. The need for and value of such a verification was obvious when calculations were performed by hand using look-up tables, and the verification was achieved by a second person independently repeating the calculation. However, in a modern clinic using CT/MR/PET simulation, computerized 3D treatment planning, heterogeneity corrections, and complex calculation algorithms such as convolution/superposition and Monte Carlo, the purpose of and methodology for the MU verification have come into question. In addition, since the verification is often performed using a simpler geometrical model and calculation algorithm than the primary calculation, exact or almost exact agreement between the two can no longer be expected. Guidelines are needed to help the physicist set clinically reasonable action levels for agreement. This report addresses the following charges of the task group: (1) To re-evaluate the purpose and methods of the "independent second check" for monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT radiation treatment in light of the complexities of modern-day treatment planning. (2) To present recommendations on how to perform verification of monitor unit calculations in a modern clinic. (3) To provide recommendations on establishing action levels for agreement between primary calculations and verification, and to provide guidance in addressing discrepancies outside the action levels. These recommendations are to be used as guidelines only and shall not be interpreted as requirements.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Monitoring daily MLC positional errors using trajectory log files and EPID measurements for IMRT and VMAT deliveries.

              This work investigated the differences between multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning accuracy determined using either log files or electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) and then assessed the possibility of reducing patient specific quality control (QC) via phantom-less methodologies. In-house software was developed, and validated, to track MLC positional accuracy with the rotational and static gantry picket fence tests using an integrated electronic portal image. This software was used to monitor MLC daily performance over a 1 year period for two Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators, with the results directly compared with MLC positions determined using leaf trajectory log files. This software was validated by introducing known shifts and collimator errors. Skewness of the MLCs was found to be 0.03 ± 0.06° (mean ±1 standard deviation (SD)) and was dependent on whether the collimator was rotated manually or automatically. Trajectory log files, analysed using in-house software, showed average MLC positioning errors with a magnitude of 0.004 ± 0.003 mm (rotational) and 0.004 ± 0.011 mm (static) across two TrueBeam units over 1 year (mean ±1 SD). These ranges, as indicated by the SD, were lower than the related average MLC positioning errors of 0.000 ± 0.025 mm (rotational) and 0.000 ± 0.039 mm (static) that were obtained using the in-house EPID based software. The range of EPID measured MLC positional errors was larger due to the inherent uncertainties of the procedure. Over the duration of the study, multiple MLC positional errors were detected using the EPID based software but these same errors were not detected using the trajectory log files. This work shows the importance of increasing linac specific QC when phantom-less methodologies, such as the use of log files, are used to reduce patient specific QC. Tolerances of 0.25 mm have been created for the MLC positional errors using the EPID-based automated picket fence test. The software allows diagnosis of any specific leaf that needs repair and gives an indication as to the course of action that is required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mcdonad@musc.edu
                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
                19 January 2017
                January 2017
                : 18
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2017.18.issue-1 )
                : 170-177
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Medical University of South Carolina Charleston SC USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Daniel G. McDonald

                E‐mail: mcdonad@ 123456musc.edu ;

                Telephone: (843) 792 6144.

                Article
                ACM212025
                10.1002/acm2.12025
                5689885
                28291938
                b642f372-0339-41bd-843f-8d091bb0dc4e
                © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

                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
                : 07 April 2016
                : 17 November 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 8, Words: 5798
                Categories
                87.56.Fc
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm212025
                January 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                eclipse acuros,imrt,mobius,mobius verification phantom,vmat
                eclipse acuros, imrt, mobius, mobius verification phantom, vmat

                Comments

                Comment on this article