Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning
Purpose Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam‐matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2019-01, Vol.20 (1), p.68-75 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 75 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 68 |
container_title | Journal of applied clinical medical physics |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Xu, Zhengzheng Warrell, Gregory Lee, Soyoung Colussi, Valdir Zheng, Yiran Ellis, Rodney Machtay, Mitchell Podder, Tarun |
description | Purpose
Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam‐matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT patients were evaluated on three beam‐matched linacs.
Method
Beam data measurements such as percentage depth dose (PDD10), beam profiles, output factors, and multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) leaf transmission factor for 6 MV photon beam were performed on three beam‐matched linacs. The Edge™ diode detector was used for measurements of beams of field size less than 5 × 5 cm2. Ten lung and 15 brain plans were generated using VMAT with the same beam model. Modulation complexity score of the VMAT plan (MCSv) was used as a plan complexity indicator. Doses were measured using ArcCHECK™ and GafChromic™ EBT3 films. The measurements were compared with calculated doses through absolute dose gamma comparison using 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. Correlation between difference in passing rates among beam‐matched linacs and MCSv was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient. Point doses were measured with the A1SL micro ion chamber.
Results
Difference in beam outputs, beam profiles, and MLC leaf transmission factors of beam‐matched linacs were all within ±1%, except the difference in output factor for 1 × 1 cm2 field between linac 1 and 3 (1.3%). For all 25 cases, passing rates of measured doses on three linacs were all higher than 90% when using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The average difference in point dose measurements among three beam‐matched linacs was 0.1 ± 0.2% (P > 0.05, one‐way ANOVA).
Conclusion
Minimal differences in beam parameters, point doses, and passing rates among three linacs proved the viability of swapping SBRT/SRT using VMAT among beam‐matched linacs. The effect of plan complexity on passing rate difference among beam‐matched linacs is not statistically significant. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.12492 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6333115</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2287995344</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5142-8466040e15aa1c49f109fc384b1d9d5f1fd2bddc8b9553350fd5bd05697397c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctuUzEQhi0EohfY8ADIEhtUKa2vJ_YGKY3KRWqFRANby8eXxNU5dmqfQ5sdj8Az8iQ4pK0KC1Yzmvn0zz_6AXiF0TFGiJxo05NjTJgkT8A-5qSZSInZ00f9Hjgo5QohjAUVz8EeRQwRKeg-uJ2V4krpXRxg8rB1uv_142evB7NyFnYhalPg9ai7MGzqITNmbTbQpwxDHFw2Kx2XIS7h5emXBazTy1rWeghbvbFsN98uZgt4E4ZVGgeY3brTMdb5C_DM6664l3f1EHx9f7aYf5ycf_7waT47nxiOGZkI1jTVrMNca2yY9BhJb6hgLbbSco-9Ja21RrSSc0o58pa3FvFGTqmcGkEPwbud7npse2dNNZZ1p9Y59DpvVNJB_b2JYaWW6btqKKUY8yrw9k4gp-vRlUH1oRjX1T9cGosimKKplIKRir75B71KY471PUWIqBCnjFXqaEeZnErJzj-YwUhtA1XbQNWfQCv8-rH9B_Q-wQrgHXATOrf5j5SazS_ITvQ3fdes4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2287995344</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Xu, Zhengzheng ; Warrell, Gregory ; Lee, Soyoung ; Colussi, Valdir ; Zheng, Yiran ; Ellis, Rodney ; Machtay, Mitchell ; Podder, Tarun</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Zhengzheng ; Warrell, Gregory ; Lee, Soyoung ; Colussi, Valdir ; Zheng, Yiran ; Ellis, Rodney ; Machtay, Mitchell ; Podder, Tarun</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam‐matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT patients were evaluated on three beam‐matched linacs.
Method
Beam data measurements such as percentage depth dose (PDD10), beam profiles, output factors, and multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) leaf transmission factor for 6 MV photon beam were performed on three beam‐matched linacs. The Edge™ diode detector was used for measurements of beams of field size less than 5 × 5 cm2. Ten lung and 15 brain plans were generated using VMAT with the same beam model. Modulation complexity score of the VMAT plan (MCSv) was used as a plan complexity indicator. Doses were measured using ArcCHECK™ and GafChromic™ EBT3 films. The measurements were compared with calculated doses through absolute dose gamma comparison using 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. Correlation between difference in passing rates among beam‐matched linacs and MCSv was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient. Point doses were measured with the A1SL micro ion chamber.
Results
Difference in beam outputs, beam profiles, and MLC leaf transmission factors of beam‐matched linacs were all within ±1%, except the difference in output factor for 1 × 1 cm2 field between linac 1 and 3 (1.3%). For all 25 cases, passing rates of measured doses on three linacs were all higher than 90% when using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The average difference in point dose measurements among three beam‐matched linacs was 0.1 ± 0.2% (P > 0.05, one‐way ANOVA).
Conclusion
Minimal differences in beam parameters, point doses, and passing rates among three linacs proved the viability of swapping SBRT/SRT using VMAT among beam‐matched linacs. The effect of plan complexity on passing rate difference among beam‐matched linacs is not statistically significant.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12492</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30402983</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; beam‐matching ; Charged particles ; Dosimetry ; Patients ; Planning ; Radiation Oncology Physics ; Radiation therapy ; SBRT ; small field dosimetry</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019-01, Vol.20 (1), p.68-75</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2019. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5142-8466040e15aa1c49f109fc384b1d9d5f1fd2bddc8b9553350fd5bd05697397c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5142-8466040e15aa1c49f109fc384b1d9d5f1fd2bddc8b9553350fd5bd05697397c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333115/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6333115/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30402983$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Zhengzheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warrell, Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Soyoung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colussi, Valdir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Yiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machtay, Mitchell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Podder, Tarun</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose
Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam‐matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT patients were evaluated on three beam‐matched linacs.
Method
Beam data measurements such as percentage depth dose (PDD10), beam profiles, output factors, and multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) leaf transmission factor for 6 MV photon beam were performed on three beam‐matched linacs. The Edge™ diode detector was used for measurements of beams of field size less than 5 × 5 cm2. Ten lung and 15 brain plans were generated using VMAT with the same beam model. Modulation complexity score of the VMAT plan (MCSv) was used as a plan complexity indicator. Doses were measured using ArcCHECK™ and GafChromic™ EBT3 films. The measurements were compared with calculated doses through absolute dose gamma comparison using 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. Correlation between difference in passing rates among beam‐matched linacs and MCSv was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient. Point doses were measured with the A1SL micro ion chamber.
Results
Difference in beam outputs, beam profiles, and MLC leaf transmission factors of beam‐matched linacs were all within ±1%, except the difference in output factor for 1 × 1 cm2 field between linac 1 and 3 (1.3%). For all 25 cases, passing rates of measured doses on three linacs were all higher than 90% when using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The average difference in point dose measurements among three beam‐matched linacs was 0.1 ± 0.2% (P > 0.05, one‐way ANOVA).
Conclusion
Minimal differences in beam parameters, point doses, and passing rates among three linacs proved the viability of swapping SBRT/SRT using VMAT among beam‐matched linacs. The effect of plan complexity on passing rate difference among beam‐matched linacs is not statistically significant.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>beam‐matching</subject><subject>Charged particles</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology Physics</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>SBRT</subject><subject>small field dosimetry</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctuUzEQhi0EohfY8ADIEhtUKa2vJ_YGKY3KRWqFRANby8eXxNU5dmqfQ5sdj8Az8iQ4pK0KC1Yzmvn0zz_6AXiF0TFGiJxo05NjTJgkT8A-5qSZSInZ00f9Hjgo5QohjAUVz8EeRQwRKeg-uJ2V4krpXRxg8rB1uv_142evB7NyFnYhalPg9ai7MGzqITNmbTbQpwxDHFw2Kx2XIS7h5emXBazTy1rWeghbvbFsN98uZgt4E4ZVGgeY3brTMdb5C_DM6664l3f1EHx9f7aYf5ycf_7waT47nxiOGZkI1jTVrMNca2yY9BhJb6hgLbbSco-9Ja21RrSSc0o58pa3FvFGTqmcGkEPwbud7npse2dNNZZ1p9Y59DpvVNJB_b2JYaWW6btqKKUY8yrw9k4gp-vRlUH1oRjX1T9cGosimKKplIKRir75B71KY471PUWIqBCnjFXqaEeZnErJzj-YwUhtA1XbQNWfQCv8-rH9B_Q-wQrgHXATOrf5j5SazS_ITvQ3fdes4Q</recordid><startdate>201901</startdate><enddate>201901</enddate><creator>Xu, Zhengzheng</creator><creator>Warrell, Gregory</creator><creator>Lee, Soyoung</creator><creator>Colussi, Valdir</creator><creator>Zheng, Yiran</creator><creator>Ellis, Rodney</creator><creator>Machtay, Mitchell</creator><creator>Podder, Tarun</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201901</creationdate><title>Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning</title><author>Xu, Zhengzheng ; Warrell, Gregory ; Lee, Soyoung ; Colussi, Valdir ; Zheng, Yiran ; Ellis, Rodney ; Machtay, Mitchell ; Podder, Tarun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5142-8466040e15aa1c49f109fc384b1d9d5f1fd2bddc8b9553350fd5bd05697397c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>beam‐matching</topic><topic>Charged particles</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology Physics</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>SBRT</topic><topic>small field dosimetry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Zhengzheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warrell, Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Soyoung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colussi, Valdir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Yiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machtay, Mitchell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Podder, Tarun</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Zhengzheng</au><au>Warrell, Gregory</au><au>Lee, Soyoung</au><au>Colussi, Valdir</au><au>Zheng, Yiran</au><au>Ellis, Rodney</au><au>Machtay, Mitchell</au><au>Podder, Tarun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2019-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>68</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>68-75</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam‐matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT patients were evaluated on three beam‐matched linacs.
Method
Beam data measurements such as percentage depth dose (PDD10), beam profiles, output factors, and multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) leaf transmission factor for 6 MV photon beam were performed on three beam‐matched linacs. The Edge™ diode detector was used for measurements of beams of field size less than 5 × 5 cm2. Ten lung and 15 brain plans were generated using VMAT with the same beam model. Modulation complexity score of the VMAT plan (MCSv) was used as a plan complexity indicator. Doses were measured using ArcCHECK™ and GafChromic™ EBT3 films. The measurements were compared with calculated doses through absolute dose gamma comparison using 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. Correlation between difference in passing rates among beam‐matched linacs and MCSv was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient. Point doses were measured with the A1SL micro ion chamber.
Results
Difference in beam outputs, beam profiles, and MLC leaf transmission factors of beam‐matched linacs were all within ±1%, except the difference in output factor for 1 × 1 cm2 field between linac 1 and 3 (1.3%). For all 25 cases, passing rates of measured doses on three linacs were all higher than 90% when using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The average difference in point dose measurements among three beam‐matched linacs was 0.1 ± 0.2% (P > 0.05, one‐way ANOVA).
Conclusion
Minimal differences in beam parameters, point doses, and passing rates among three linacs proved the viability of swapping SBRT/SRT using VMAT among beam‐matched linacs. The effect of plan complexity on passing rate difference among beam‐matched linacs is not statistically significant.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30402983</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.12492</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
ispartof | Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019-01, Vol.20 (1), p.68-75 |
issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6333115 |
source | Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Accuracy beam‐matching Charged particles Dosimetry Patients Planning Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation therapy SBRT small field dosimetry |
title | Assessment of beam‐matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T19%3A37%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20beam%E2%80%90matched%20linacs%20quality/accuracy%20for%20interchanging%20SBRT%20or%20SRT%20patient%20using%20VMAT%20without%20replanning&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Xu,%20Zhengzheng&rft.date=2019-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=68&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=68-75&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.12492&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2287995344%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2287995344&rft_id=info:pmid/30402983&rfr_iscdi=true |