6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measurement‐guided volumetric dose reconstruction for helical tomotherapy

      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

          It was previously demonstrated that dose delivered by a conventional linear accelerator using IMRT or VMAT can be reconstructed — on patient or phantom datasets — using helical diode array measurements and a technique called planned dose perturbation (PDP). This allows meaningful and intuitive analysis of the agreement between the planned and delivered dose, including direct comparison of the dose‐volume histograms. While conceptually similar to modulated arc techniques, helical tomotherapy introduces significant challenges to the PDP formalism, arising primarily from TomoTherapy delivery dynamics. The temporal characteristics of the delivery are of the same order or shorter than the dosimeter's update interval (50 ms). Additionally, the prevalence of often small and complex segments, particularly with the 1 cm Y jaw setting, lead to challenges related to detector spacing. Here, we present and test a novel method of tomotherapy‐PDP (TPDP) designed to meet these challenges. One of the novel techniques introduced for TPDP is organization of the subbeams into larger subunits called sectors, which assures more robust synchronization of the measurement and delivery dynamics. Another important change is the optional application of a correction based on ion chamber (IC) measurements in the phantom. The TPDP method was validated by direct comparisons to the IC and an independent, biplanar diode array dosimeter previously evaluated for tomotherapy delivery quality assurance. Nineteen plans with varying complexity were analyzed for the 2.5 cm tomotherapy jaw setting and 18 for the 1 cm opening. The dose differences between the TPDP and IC were 1.0 % ± 1.1 % and 1.1 % ± 1.1 % , for 2.5 and 1.0 cm jaw plans, respectively. Gamma analysis agreement rates between TPDP and the independent array were: 99.1 % ± 1.8 % (using 3% global normalization/3 mm criteria) and 93.4 % ± 7.1 % (using 2% global/2 mm) for the 2.5 cm jaw plans; for 1 cm plans, they were 95.2 % ± 6.7 % (3% G/3) and 83.8 % ± 12 % (2% G/2). We conclude that TPDP is capable of volumetric dose reconstruction with acceptable accuracy. However, the challenges of fast tomotherapy delivery dynamics make TPDP less precise than the IMRT/VMAT PDP version, particularly for the 1 cm jaw setting.

          PACS number: 87.55Qr

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

          The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.

            AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.

              In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Vladimir.feygelman@mofffitt.org
                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 March 2015
                March 2015
                : 16
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2015.16.issue-2 )
                : 302-321
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Physics University of South Florida Tampa FL USA
                [ 2 ] Canis Lupus LLC Merrimac WI USA
                [ 3 ] Live Oak Technologies LLC St. Louis MO USA
                [ 4 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa FL USA
                [ 5 ] Department of Human Oncology University of Wisconsin Madison WI USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] a Corresponding author: Vladimir Feygelman, Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Dr., Tampa, FL 33612, USA; phone: (813) 745 8424; fax: (813) 745 7231; email: Vladimir.feygelman@ 123456mofffitt.org

                Article
                ACM20302
                10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5298
                5690083
                26103199
                dcc1eeb9-1c67-4d7a-ae96-ea8747fb2925
                © 2015 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
                : 26 August 2014
                : 21 October 2014
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 6, References: 40, Pages: 20, Words: 10817
                Funding
                Funded by: Sun Nuclear Corp
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20302
                March 2015
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                helical tomotherapy qa,diode array,measurement‐guided dose reconstruction

                Comments

                Comment on this article