Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system
Abstract COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 2016, Vol.41 (3), p.205-211 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 211 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 205 |
| container_title | Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D Ono, Takeshi Onitsuka, Ryota Maruyama, Masato Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu Kai, Yudai |
| description | Abstract COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.meddos.2016.03.001 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_22685148</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0958394716300012</els_id><sourcerecordid>1813622385</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-757c080cffc348e0f20c03d22c74cfe2ec1e6746763dc7c1c3c2ec303613eb113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUk1v1DAQtRCILoV_gFAkLlyyjD8SZy9IaFUoUiUOwNnKjifgJbEX2ynaf4-jtD30wsnyzJs3H-8x9prDlgNv3x-3E1kb0laU3xbkFoA_YRveaVkrEOIp28Cu6Wq5U_qCvUjpCACNAvmcXQjN9U5Dt2G3-zCd-uhS8FUYKllbN5FPLvh-rAo7VZEw-JTjjLlEq3ROmabqQPkvka-GcSaPVB_6RPY-2Xu71k7UpzlSYcz1z9nZB8hL9mzox0Sv7t5L9uPT1ff9dX3z9fOX_cebGpVqcq0bjdABDgNK1REMAhCkFQK1woEEIadWq1a30qJGjhJLTIJsuaQD5_KSvV15Q8rOJHSZ8FfZxxNmI0TbNVx1BfVuRZ1i-DNTymZyCWkce09hToZ3XLZCyK4pULVCMYaUIg3mFN3Ux7PhYBZdzNGsuphFFwPSFF1K2Zu7DvOhpB-K7oUogA8rgMo1bh3FZdjlstbFZVYb3P86PCbA0XmH_fibzpSOYY5F0rKLScKA-bZ4Y7EGb2XxBRfyH34YtxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1813622385</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D ; Ono, Takeshi ; Onitsuka, Ryota ; Maruyama, Masato ; Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu ; Kai, Yudai</creator><creatorcontrib>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D ; Ono, Takeshi ; Onitsuka, Ryota ; Maruyama, Masato ; Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu ; Kai, Yudai</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0958-3947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4022</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2016.03.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27179708</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>3-Dimensional measurement ; 3-Dimensional reconstruction ; ACCURACY ; COLLIMATORS ; COMMISSIONING ; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS ; COMPASS-D TOKAMAK ; COMPUTER CODES ; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION ; DOSIMETRY ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; HOSPITALS ; Humans ; IMRT ; MONTE CARLO METHOD ; PHANTOMS ; Phantoms, Imaging ; PLANNING ; QUALITY ASSURANCE ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; QUALITY MANAGEMENT ; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ; RADIATION DOSES ; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ; Radiology ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; RADIOTHERAPY ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods ; Software ; VALIDATION ; VERIFICATION</subject><ispartof>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, 2016, Vol.41 (3), p.205-211</ispartof><rights>American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</rights><rights>2016 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-757c080cffc348e0f20c03d22c74cfe2ec1e6746763dc7c1c3c2ec303613eb113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-757c080cffc348e0f20c03d22c74cfe2ec1e6746763dc7c1c3c2ec303613eb113</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394716300012$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179708$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22685148$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ono, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onitsuka, Ryota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maruyama, Masato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kai, Yudai</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system</title><title>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</title><addtitle>Med Dosim</addtitle><description>Abstract COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.</description><subject>3-Dimensional measurement</subject><subject>3-Dimensional reconstruction</subject><subject>ACCURACY</subject><subject>COLLIMATORS</subject><subject>COMMISSIONING</subject><subject>COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS</subject><subject>COMPASS-D TOKAMAK</subject><subject>COMPUTER CODES</subject><subject>COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION</subject><subject>DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>HOSPITALS</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>IMRT</subject><subject>MONTE CARLO METHOD</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>PLANNING</subject><subject>QUALITY ASSURANCE</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>QUALITY MANAGEMENT</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSES</subject><subject>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>RADIOTHERAPY</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>VALIDATION</subject><subject>VERIFICATION</subject><issn>0958-3947</issn><issn>1873-4022</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUk1v1DAQtRCILoV_gFAkLlyyjD8SZy9IaFUoUiUOwNnKjifgJbEX2ynaf4-jtD30wsnyzJs3H-8x9prDlgNv3x-3E1kb0laU3xbkFoA_YRveaVkrEOIp28Cu6Wq5U_qCvUjpCACNAvmcXQjN9U5Dt2G3-zCd-uhS8FUYKllbN5FPLvh-rAo7VZEw-JTjjLlEq3ROmabqQPkvka-GcSaPVB_6RPY-2Xu71k7UpzlSYcz1z9nZB8hL9mzox0Sv7t5L9uPT1ff9dX3z9fOX_cebGpVqcq0bjdABDgNK1REMAhCkFQK1woEEIadWq1a30qJGjhJLTIJsuaQD5_KSvV15Q8rOJHSZ8FfZxxNmI0TbNVx1BfVuRZ1i-DNTymZyCWkce09hToZ3XLZCyK4pULVCMYaUIg3mFN3Ux7PhYBZdzNGsuphFFwPSFF1K2Zu7DvOhpB-K7oUogA8rgMo1bh3FZdjlstbFZVYb3P86PCbA0XmH_fibzpSOYY5F0rKLScKA-bZ4Y7EGb2XxBRfyH34YtxQ</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D</creator><creator>Ono, Takeshi</creator><creator>Onitsuka, Ryota</creator><creator>Maruyama, Masato</creator><creator>Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu</creator><creator>Kai, Yudai</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</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><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system</title><author>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D ; Ono, Takeshi ; Onitsuka, Ryota ; Maruyama, Masato ; Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu ; Kai, Yudai</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-757c080cffc348e0f20c03d22c74cfe2ec1e6746763dc7c1c3c2ec303613eb113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>3-Dimensional measurement</topic><topic>3-Dimensional reconstruction</topic><topic>ACCURACY</topic><topic>COLLIMATORS</topic><topic>COMMISSIONING</topic><topic>COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS</topic><topic>COMPASS-D TOKAMAK</topic><topic>COMPUTER CODES</topic><topic>COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION</topic><topic>DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>HOSPITALS</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>IMRT</topic><topic>MONTE CARLO METHOD</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>PLANNING</topic><topic>QUALITY ASSURANCE</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>QUALITY MANAGEMENT</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSES</topic><topic>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>RADIOTHERAPY</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>VALIDATION</topic><topic>VERIFICATION</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ono, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onitsuka, Ryota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maruyama, Masato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kai, Yudai</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><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nakaguchi, Yuji, Ph.D</au><au>Ono, Takeshi</au><au>Onitsuka, Ryota</au><au>Maruyama, Masato</au><au>Shimohigashi, Yoshinobu</au><au>Kai, Yudai</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system</atitle><jtitle>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</jtitle><addtitle>Med Dosim</addtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>205</spage><epage>211</epage><pages>205-211</pages><issn>0958-3947</issn><eissn>1873-4022</eissn><abstract>Abstract COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27179708</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.meddos.2016.03.001</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0958-3947 |
| ispartof | Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, 2016, Vol.41 (3), p.205-211 |
| issn | 0958-3947 1873-4022 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_osti_scitechconnect_22685148 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | 3-Dimensional measurement 3-Dimensional reconstruction ACCURACY COLLIMATORS COMMISSIONING COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS COMPASS-D TOKAMAK COMPUTER CODES COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION DOSIMETRY Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine HOSPITALS Humans IMRT MONTE CARLO METHOD PHANTOMS Phantoms, Imaging PLANNING QUALITY ASSURANCE Quality Assurance, Health Care QUALITY MANAGEMENT RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS RADIATION DOSES RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY Radiology RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE RADIOTHERAPY Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods Software VALIDATION VERIFICATION |
| title | Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T22%3A43%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%203-dimensional%20dose%20reconstruction%20system%20between%20fluence-based%20system%20and%20dose%20measurement-guided%20system&rft.jtitle=Medical%20dosimetry%20:%20official%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Association%20of%20Medical%20Dosimetrists&rft.au=Nakaguchi,%20Yuji,%20Ph.D&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=205&rft.epage=211&rft.pages=205-211&rft.issn=0958-3947&rft.eissn=1873-4022&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.meddos.2016.03.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E1813622385%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1813622385&rft_id=info:pmid/27179708&rft_els_id=S0958394716300012&rfr_iscdi=true |