Back
 IJMPCERO  Vol.8 No.1 , February 2019
Investigation of Error Detection Capabilities of Various Patient-Specific Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Quality Assurance Devices
Abstract: The capability of error detection of patient-specific QA tools plays an important role in verifying MLC motion accuracy. The goal of this study was to investigate the capability in error detection of portal dosimetry, MapCHECK2 and MatriXX QA tools in IMRT plans. The 9 fields IMRT for 4 head and neck plans and 7 fields IMRT for 4 prostate plans were selected for the error detection of QA devices. The measurements were undertaken for the original plan and the modified plans, where the known errors were introduced for increasing and decreasing of prescribed dose (±2%, ±4% and ±6%) and position shifted in X-axis and Y-axis (±1, ±2, ±3 and ±5 mm). After measurement, the results were compared between calculated and measured values using gamma analysis at 3%/3 mm criteria. The average gamma pass for no errors introduced in head and neck plans was 96.9%, 98.6%, and 98.8%, while prostate plans presented 99.4%, 99.0%, and 99.7%, for portal dosimetry, MapCHECK2 and MatriXX system, respectively. In head and neck plan, the shifted error detections were 1 mm for portal dosimetry, 2 mm for MapCHECK2, and 3 mm for MatriXX system. In prostate plan, the shifted error detections were 2 mm for portal dosimetry, 3 mm for MapCHECK2, and 5 mm for MatriXX system. For the dose error detection, the portal dosimetry system could detect at 2% dose deviation in head and neck and 4% in prostate plans, while other two devices could detect at 4% dose deviation in both head and neck and prostate plans. Portal dosimetry shows slightly more capability to detect the error compared with MapCHECK2 and MatriXX system, especially in the complicated plan. It may be due to higher resolution of the detector; however, all three-detector types can detect various errors and can be used for patient-specific IMRT QA.
Cite this paper: Sanghangthum, T. , Lat, S. and Suriyapee, S. (2019) Investigation of Error Detection Capabilities of Various Patient-Specific Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Quality Assurance Devices. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 8, 21-31. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2019.81003.
References

[1]   Taylor, A. and Powell, M.E.B. (2004) Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy—What It Is? Cancer Imaging, 4, 68-73.
https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2004.0003

[2]   Li, G.J., et al. (2013) Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Two 3D Diode Array Dosimetry Systems to Setup Error for Quality Assurance (QA) of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 13-24.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.3828

[3]   Bawazeer, O., et al. (2014) Evaluation of the Ability of a 2D Ionization Chamber Array and an EPID to Detect Systematic Delivery Errors in IMRT Plans. Journal of Phys: Conference Series, 489, Article ID: 01207.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/489/1/012071

[4]   Son, J., et al. (2005) A Comparison of the Quality Assurance of Four Dosimetric Tools for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. Radiology and Oncology, 49, 307-313.
https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2015-0021

[5]   Moran, J.M., Radawski, J. and Fraass, B.A. (2005) A Dose-Gradient Analysis Tool for IMRT QA. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 6, 62-73.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.2024.25338

[6]   Winkler, P., Hefner, A. and Georg, D. (2005) Dose-Response Characteristics of Amorphous Silicon EPID. Medical Physics, 32, 3095-3105.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2040711

[7]   Defoor, D.L., et al. (2017) Investigation of Error Detection Capabilities of Phantom, EPID and MLC Log File Based IMRT QA Methods. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 18, 172-179.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12114

[8]   Sumida, I., et al. (2016) Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Dose Verification Using Fluence and Portal Imaging Device. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 17, 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5899

[9]   Bojechko, C. and Ford, E.C. (2016) Quantifying the Performance of in Vivo Portal Dosimetry in Detecting Four Types of Treatment Parameter Variations. Medical Physics, 42, 6912-6918.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4935093

 
 
Top