Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:12:41.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient-specific quality control for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy using electronic portal imaging device and two-dimensional ion chamber array

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2018

Abu Kausar ,
Karthick R. Mani ,
Hasin A. Azhari  and
Golam A. Zakaria
Abu Kausar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Gono University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Karthick R. Mani
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, United Hospital Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Hasin A. Azhari*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Gummersbach Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Gummersbach, Germany
Golam A. Zakaria
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Gummersbach Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Gummersbach, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Professor Hasin Anupama Azhari, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Gono University (Bishwabidyalay), Nolam Campus, Post Office: Mirzanagar via Savar Cantonment, Savar, Dhaka-1344, Bangladesh. Tel: +8801711841063. E-mail: ahasinanupama@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to develop the patient-specific quality control (QC) process by most commonly used dosimeters in Bangladesh and recommend a suitable passing rate for QC, irrespective of the dosimetric tools used.

Materials and methods

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans of five head-and-neck (HN) and five prostate patients were selected for the patient-specific QC. These plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS v11·0 (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) 6 MV X-ray from a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.) for each case. Each IMRT and VMAT plans were measured by two-dimensional (2D) ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) and electronic portal imaging devices (EPID), respectively. The passing rates of the dosimetric tools were calculated using criteria of 3%/3 mm.

Results

The average passing rates (±SD) of I’matriXX for prostate and HN were 97·9±0·76 and 98·88±0·24, respectively. For VMAT verification, the average passing rates of EPID for prostate for arc1 and arc2 were 96·15±0·49 and 97·8±0·70, respectively; similarly, for HN the rates were 97·85±0·63 and 97·2±0·56, respectively.

Conclusion

The results showed that both the dosimeters can be used in patient-specific QC, although the EPID-based IMRT and VMAT QC is more advantageous in terms of time-saving and ease of use. Hence, for patient-specific QC, one can use the ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) or EPID in hospital, but the systems need to be cross-checked.

Keywords

intensity-modulated radiation therapypatient-specific quality controlplan verificationportal imagingvolumetric-modulated arc therapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 26 - 31
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Kausar A, Mani KR, Azhari HA, Zakaria GA. (2019) Patient-specific quality control for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy using electronic portal imaging device and two-dimensional ion chamber array. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 26–31. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000328

References

1. Ezzell, G A, Galvin, J M, Low, D et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. Med Phys 2003; 30 (8): 2089–2115.Google Scholar
2. Hartford, A C, Palisca, M G, Eichler, T J et al. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Guidelines for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 73 (1): 9–14.Google Scholar
3. McKenzie, E. An evaluation of the consistency of IMRT patient specific QA techniques. Master of Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, USA, December 2013.Google Scholar
4. Code of Practice for the Quality Assurance and Control for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy. Report 22 of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry, June 2013.Google Scholar
5. Code of Practice for the Quality Assurance and Control for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. Report 24 of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry, February 2015.Google Scholar
6. Son, J, Baek, T, Lee, B et al. A comparison of the quality assurance of four dosimetric tools for intensity modulated radiation therapy. Radiol Oncol 2015; 49 (3): 307–313.Google Scholar
7. Li, G, Zhang, Y, Jiang, X et al. Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med 2013; 29: 295–303.Google Scholar
8. Saminathan, S, Manickan, R, Chandraraj, V, Sanjay, S. Dosimetric study of 2D ion chamber array matrix for the modern radiotherapy treatment verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (2): 116–118.Google Scholar
9. Jayesh, K, Ganesh, T, Suganthi, D et al. Dosimetric comparison of aSi1000 EPID and ImatriXX 2-D array system for volumetric modulated arc and intensity modulated radiotherapy patient specific quality assurance. Int J Math Comput Phys Electrical Comput Eng 2013; 7 (3): 393–394.Google Scholar
10. Rao, M, Yang, W, Chen, F et al. Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy. Med Phys 2010; 37 (3): 1356–1357.Google Scholar