Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems

Purpose: To compare and evaluate different dosimetric techniques and devices for the QA of VMAT plans created by two treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: A total of 50 VMAT plans were optimized for treatment of anatomical sites of various complexities by two TPSs which use rather different ap...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2011-02, Vol.38 (2), p.612-621
Hauptverfasser: Masi, L., Casamassima, F., Doro, R., Francescon, P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 621
container_issue 2
container_start_page 612
container_title Medical physics (Lancaster)
container_volume 38
creator Masi, L.
Casamassima, F.
Doro, R.
Francescon, P.
description Purpose: To compare and evaluate different dosimetric techniques and devices for the QA of VMAT plans created by two treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: A total of 50 VMAT plans were optimized for treatment of anatomical sites of various complexities by two TPSs which use rather different approaches to VMAT optimization. Dosimetric plan verifications were performed both as part of commissioning and as patient specific QA of clinical treatments. Absolute point doses were measured for all plans by a micro ion chamber inserted in a dedicated water-filled cylindrical phantom. Delivered dose distributions were verified by four techniques based on different detectors: radiographic and gafchromic films, two systems based on 2D diode arrays and an ion chamber array. Gamma index analysis with various tolerance levels (3%, 3 mm and 3%, 2 mm) was used to analyze differences between calculated and delivered doses. Sensitivity to possible delivery errors was also evaluated for three of the considered devices introducing ±3 mm shifts along the three directions and a 3° gantry offset. Results: Ion chamber measured point doses were within 3% of calculated ones for 48 out of 50 values. For delivered dose distribution, the average fraction of passed gamma values using 3% and 3 mm criteria was above 95% for both TPSs and all detectors except gafchromic film which yielded on average of 91.4%. For 49 out of 50 plans, a pass-rate above 94% was obtained by at least one of the four techniques. Shrinking the tolerance to 3% and 2 mm, the average pass-rate by all detectors (except film) was still above 95% for one of the two TPSs, but lower for the other one. The detector sensitivity to 3 mm shifts and to gantry angle offset was strongly plan and partially detector dependent: the obtained pass-rate reduction ranged from 2% to 30%. Conclusions: The presented results for VMAT plans QA assess the reliability of the delivered doses for both TPSs. The slightly lower pass-rate obtained for one of the considered TPS can be attributed to a higher level of complexity of the optimized plans. The results by different dosimetric techniques are coherent, apart from a few measurements by gafchromic films. The detector sensitivity to delivery errors, being strongly plan dependent, is not easy to evaluate.
doi_str_mv 10.1118/1.3533900
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_3533900</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>859759252</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3920-23aa3b8d856aeb4fe828e732967a94cefca8ce52d0d2e80ac742c91ad024d50a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1r1UAUQIei2Nfqon-gzE4U0s7ny0x3UmoVKlbQdbhv5ganJJl0ZvIk_97oi-Kmri4Xzj0XDiFnnF1wzs0lv5BaSsvYEdkIVctKCWafkQ1jVlVCMX1MTnJ-YIxtpWYvyLHgSoutNRsyfpmgC2WmkPOUYHBIY0v3sZt6LCk42kc_dVDQU0iOlu-YYJyv6M0euglKiAOFwVMX-xFSyMu6nPvQtphwKNTHHFZRnnPBPr8kz1voMr5a5yn59v7m6_WH6u7z7cfrd3eVk1awSkgAuTPe6C3gTrVohMFaCrutwSqHrQPjUAvPvEDDwNVKOMvBM6G8ZiBPyeuDd0zxccJcmj5kh10HA8YpN0bbWluhxUK-OZAuxZwTts2YQg9pbjhrfvVteLP2Xdjz1TrtevR_yT9BF6A6AD9Ch_PTpubT_Sp8e-CzC-V3z_9-fxLex_SPfPSt_AkXCKFi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>859759252</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Masi, L. ; Casamassima, F. ; Doro, R. ; Francescon, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Masi, L. ; Casamassima, F. ; Doro, R. ; Francescon, P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To compare and evaluate different dosimetric techniques and devices for the QA of VMAT plans created by two treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: A total of 50 VMAT plans were optimized for treatment of anatomical sites of various complexities by two TPSs which use rather different approaches to VMAT optimization. Dosimetric plan verifications were performed both as part of commissioning and as patient specific QA of clinical treatments. Absolute point doses were measured for all plans by a micro ion chamber inserted in a dedicated water-filled cylindrical phantom. Delivered dose distributions were verified by four techniques based on different detectors: radiographic and gafchromic films, two systems based on 2D diode arrays and an ion chamber array. Gamma index analysis with various tolerance levels (3%, 3 mm and 3%, 2 mm) was used to analyze differences between calculated and delivered doses. Sensitivity to possible delivery errors was also evaluated for three of the considered devices introducing ±3 mm shifts along the three directions and a 3° gantry offset. Results: Ion chamber measured point doses were within 3% of calculated ones for 48 out of 50 values. For delivered dose distribution, the average fraction of passed gamma values using 3% and 3 mm criteria was above 95% for both TPSs and all detectors except gafchromic film which yielded on average of 91.4%. For 49 out of 50 plans, a pass-rate above 94% was obtained by at least one of the four techniques. Shrinking the tolerance to 3% and 2 mm, the average pass-rate by all detectors (except film) was still above 95% for one of the two TPSs, but lower for the other one. The detector sensitivity to 3 mm shifts and to gantry angle offset was strongly plan and partially detector dependent: the obtained pass-rate reduction ranged from 2% to 30%. Conclusions: The presented results for VMAT plans QA assess the reliability of the delivered doses for both TPSs. The slightly lower pass-rate obtained for one of the considered TPS can be attributed to a higher level of complexity of the optimized plans. The results by different dosimetric techniques are coherent, apart from a few measurements by gafchromic films. The detector sensitivity to delivery errors, being strongly plan dependent, is not easy to evaluate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.3533900</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21452698</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>Anatomy ; Calibration ; Cancer ; Computer software ; diagnostic radiography ; Dose‐volume analysis ; dosimetry ; Intensity modulated radiation therapy ; ionisation chambers ; Ionization chambers ; Linear accelerators ; Medical treatment planning ; Motion ; Multileaf collimators ; patient treatment ; phantoms ; Quality Control ; Radiometry - methods ; Radiometry - standards ; Radiotherapy - methods ; Radiotherapy - standards ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2011-02, Vol.38 (2), p.612-621</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3920-23aa3b8d856aeb4fe828e732967a94cefca8ce52d0d2e80ac742c91ad024d50a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3920-23aa3b8d856aeb4fe828e732967a94cefca8ce52d0d2e80ac742c91ad024d50a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1118%2F1.3533900$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.3533900$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21452698$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Masi, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casamassima, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doro, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francescon, P.</creatorcontrib><title>Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose: To compare and evaluate different dosimetric techniques and devices for the QA of VMAT plans created by two treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: A total of 50 VMAT plans were optimized for treatment of anatomical sites of various complexities by two TPSs which use rather different approaches to VMAT optimization. Dosimetric plan verifications were performed both as part of commissioning and as patient specific QA of clinical treatments. Absolute point doses were measured for all plans by a micro ion chamber inserted in a dedicated water-filled cylindrical phantom. Delivered dose distributions were verified by four techniques based on different detectors: radiographic and gafchromic films, two systems based on 2D diode arrays and an ion chamber array. Gamma index analysis with various tolerance levels (3%, 3 mm and 3%, 2 mm) was used to analyze differences between calculated and delivered doses. Sensitivity to possible delivery errors was also evaluated for three of the considered devices introducing ±3 mm shifts along the three directions and a 3° gantry offset. Results: Ion chamber measured point doses were within 3% of calculated ones for 48 out of 50 values. For delivered dose distribution, the average fraction of passed gamma values using 3% and 3 mm criteria was above 95% for both TPSs and all detectors except gafchromic film which yielded on average of 91.4%. For 49 out of 50 plans, a pass-rate above 94% was obtained by at least one of the four techniques. Shrinking the tolerance to 3% and 2 mm, the average pass-rate by all detectors (except film) was still above 95% for one of the two TPSs, but lower for the other one. The detector sensitivity to 3 mm shifts and to gantry angle offset was strongly plan and partially detector dependent: the obtained pass-rate reduction ranged from 2% to 30%. Conclusions: The presented results for VMAT plans QA assess the reliability of the delivered doses for both TPSs. The slightly lower pass-rate obtained for one of the considered TPS can be attributed to a higher level of complexity of the optimized plans. The results by different dosimetric techniques are coherent, apart from a few measurements by gafchromic films. The detector sensitivity to delivery errors, being strongly plan dependent, is not easy to evaluate.</description><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Computer software</subject><subject>diagnostic radiography</subject><subject>Dose‐volume analysis</subject><subject>dosimetry</subject><subject>Intensity modulated radiation therapy</subject><subject>ionisation chambers</subject><subject>Ionization chambers</subject><subject>Linear accelerators</subject><subject>Medical treatment planning</subject><subject>Motion</subject><subject>Multileaf collimators</subject><subject>patient treatment</subject><subject>phantoms</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Radiometry - methods</subject><subject>Radiometry - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1r1UAUQIei2Nfqon-gzE4U0s7ny0x3UmoVKlbQdbhv5ganJJl0ZvIk_97oi-Kmri4Xzj0XDiFnnF1wzs0lv5BaSsvYEdkIVctKCWafkQ1jVlVCMX1MTnJ-YIxtpWYvyLHgSoutNRsyfpmgC2WmkPOUYHBIY0v3sZt6LCk42kc_dVDQU0iOlu-YYJyv6M0euglKiAOFwVMX-xFSyMu6nPvQtphwKNTHHFZRnnPBPr8kz1voMr5a5yn59v7m6_WH6u7z7cfrd3eVk1awSkgAuTPe6C3gTrVohMFaCrutwSqHrQPjUAvPvEDDwNVKOMvBM6G8ZiBPyeuDd0zxccJcmj5kh10HA8YpN0bbWluhxUK-OZAuxZwTts2YQg9pbjhrfvVteLP2Xdjz1TrtevR_yT9BF6A6AD9Ch_PTpubT_Sp8e-CzC-V3z_9-fxLex_SPfPSt_AkXCKFi</recordid><startdate>201102</startdate><enddate>201102</enddate><creator>Masi, L.</creator><creator>Casamassima, F.</creator><creator>Doro, R.</creator><creator>Francescon, P.</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201102</creationdate><title>Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems</title><author>Masi, L. ; Casamassima, F. ; Doro, R. ; Francescon, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3920-23aa3b8d856aeb4fe828e732967a94cefca8ce52d0d2e80ac742c91ad024d50a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Computer software</topic><topic>diagnostic radiography</topic><topic>Dose‐volume analysis</topic><topic>dosimetry</topic><topic>Intensity modulated radiation therapy</topic><topic>ionisation chambers</topic><topic>Ionization chambers</topic><topic>Linear accelerators</topic><topic>Medical treatment planning</topic><topic>Motion</topic><topic>Multileaf collimators</topic><topic>patient treatment</topic><topic>phantoms</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Radiometry - methods</topic><topic>Radiometry - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Masi, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casamassima, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doro, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francescon, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Masi, L.</au><au>Casamassima, F.</au><au>Doro, R.</au><au>Francescon, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2011-02</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>612</spage><epage>621</epage><pages>612-621</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose: To compare and evaluate different dosimetric techniques and devices for the QA of VMAT plans created by two treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: A total of 50 VMAT plans were optimized for treatment of anatomical sites of various complexities by two TPSs which use rather different approaches to VMAT optimization. Dosimetric plan verifications were performed both as part of commissioning and as patient specific QA of clinical treatments. Absolute point doses were measured for all plans by a micro ion chamber inserted in a dedicated water-filled cylindrical phantom. Delivered dose distributions were verified by four techniques based on different detectors: radiographic and gafchromic films, two systems based on 2D diode arrays and an ion chamber array. Gamma index analysis with various tolerance levels (3%, 3 mm and 3%, 2 mm) was used to analyze differences between calculated and delivered doses. Sensitivity to possible delivery errors was also evaluated for three of the considered devices introducing ±3 mm shifts along the three directions and a 3° gantry offset. Results: Ion chamber measured point doses were within 3% of calculated ones for 48 out of 50 values. For delivered dose distribution, the average fraction of passed gamma values using 3% and 3 mm criteria was above 95% for both TPSs and all detectors except gafchromic film which yielded on average of 91.4%. For 49 out of 50 plans, a pass-rate above 94% was obtained by at least one of the four techniques. Shrinking the tolerance to 3% and 2 mm, the average pass-rate by all detectors (except film) was still above 95% for one of the two TPSs, but lower for the other one. The detector sensitivity to 3 mm shifts and to gantry angle offset was strongly plan and partially detector dependent: the obtained pass-rate reduction ranged from 2% to 30%. Conclusions: The presented results for VMAT plans QA assess the reliability of the delivered doses for both TPSs. The slightly lower pass-rate obtained for one of the considered TPS can be attributed to a higher level of complexity of the optimized plans. The results by different dosimetric techniques are coherent, apart from a few measurements by gafchromic films. The detector sensitivity to delivery errors, being strongly plan dependent, is not easy to evaluate.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><pmid>21452698</pmid><doi>10.1118/1.3533900</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical physics (Lancaster), 2011-02, Vol.38 (2), p.612-621
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_3533900
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Anatomy
Calibration
Cancer
Computer software
diagnostic radiography
Dose‐volume analysis
dosimetry
Intensity modulated radiation therapy
ionisation chambers
Ionization chambers
Linear accelerators
Medical treatment planning
Motion
Multileaf collimators
patient treatment
phantoms
Quality Control
Radiometry - methods
Radiometry - standards
Radiotherapy - methods
Radiotherapy - standards
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
title Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: Evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T05%3A32%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20assurance%20of%20volumetric%20modulated%20arc%20therapy:%20Evaluation%20and%20comparison%20of%20different%20dosimetric%20systems&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Masi,%20L.&rft.date=2011-02&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=612&rft.epage=621&rft.pages=612-621&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.3533900&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E859759252%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=859759252&rft_id=info:pmid/21452698&rfr_iscdi=true