Comparison of DVH‐based plan verification methods for VMAT: ArcCHECK‐3DVH system and dynalog‐based dose reconstruction
| Autor: | Ken Takeda, Kengo Ito, Noriyuki Kadoya, Masahide Saito, Keiichi Jingu, S. Dobashi, Hiroshi Onishi, Kiyokazu Sato |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Esophageal Neoplasms Quality Assurance Health Care medicine.medical_treatment VMAT patient QA dose reconstruction Sensitivity and Specificity 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine 87.53.Tf Radiation Oncology Physics Humans Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Head and neck Instrumentation radiotherapy Radiation business.industry Radiotherapy Planning Computer-Assisted Prostatic Neoplasms Radiotherapy Dosage Reconstruction method Volumetric modulated arc therapy Radiation therapy Head and Neck Neoplasms 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Patient dose Radiotherapy Intensity-Modulated business Nuclear medicine Software |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| ISSN: | 1526-9914 |
| Popis: | The purpose of this study was comparing dose‐volume histogram (DVH)‐based plan verification methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) pretreatment QA. We evaluated two 3D dose reconstruction systems: ArcCHECK‐3DVH system (Sun Nuclear corp.) and Varian dynalog‐based dose reconstruction (DBDR) system, developed in‐house. Fifteen prostate cancer patients (67.6 Gy/26 Fr), four head and neck cancer patient (66 Gy/33 Fr), and four esophagus cancer patients (60 Gy/30 Fr) treated with VMAT were studied. First, ArcCHECK measurement was performed on all plans; simultaneously, the Varian dynalog data sets that contained the actual delivered parameters (leaf positions, gantry angles, and cumulative MUs) were acquired from the Linac control system. Thereafter, the delivered 3D patient dose was reconstructed by 3DVH software (two different calculating modes were used: High Sensitivity (3DVH‐HS) and Normal Sensitivity (3DVH‐NS)) and in‐house DBDR system. We evaluated the differences between the TPS‐calculated dose and the reconstructed dose using 3D gamma passing rates and DVH dose index analysis. The average 3D gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm) between the TPS‐calculated dose and the reconstructed dose were 99.1 ± 0.6%, 99.7 ± 0.3%, and 100.0 ± 0.1% for 3DVH–HS, 3DVH–NS, and DBDR, respectively. For the prostate cases, the average differences between the TPS‐calculated dose and reconstructed dose in the PTV mean dose were 1.52 ± 0.50%, −0.14 ± 0.55%, and −0.03 ± 0.07% for 3DVH–HS, 3DVH–NS, and DBDR, respectively. For the head and neck and esophagus cases, the dose difference to the TPS‐calculated dose caused by an effect of heterogeneity was more apparent under the 3DVH dose reconstruction than the DBDR. Although with some residual dose reconstruction errors, these dose reconstruction methods can be clinically used as effective tools for DVH‐based QA for VMAT delivery. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text