Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Mar 7:9:71.
doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-71.

Comparison of 3D anatomical dose verification and 2D phantom dose verification of IMRT/VMAT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Hailei Lin, Shaomin Huang, Xiaowu Deng  1 , Jinhan Zhu, Lixin Chen
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of 3D anatomical dose verification and 2D phantom dose verification of IMRT/VMAT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Hailei Lin et al. Radiat Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: The two-dimensional phantom dose verification (2D-PDV) using hybrid plan and planar dose measurement has been widely used for IMRT treatment QA. Due to the lack of information about the correlations between the verification results and the anatomical structure of patients, it is inadequate in clinical evaluation. A three-dimensional anatomical dose verification (3D-ADV) method was used in this study to evaluate the IMRT/VMAT treatment delivery for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and comparison with 2D-PDV was analyzed.

Methods: Twenty nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with IMRT/VMAT were recruited in the study. A 2D ion-chamber array was used for the 2D-PDV in both single-gantry-angle composite (SGAC) and multi-gantry-angle composite (MGAC) verifications. Differences in the gamma pass rate between the 2 verification methods were assessed. Based on measurement of irradiation dose fluence, the 3D dose distribution was reconstructed for 3D-ADV in the above cases. The reconstructed dose homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) were calculated. Gamma pass rate and deviations in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of each PTV and organ at risk (OAR) were analyzed.

Results: In 2D-PDV, the gamma pass rate (3%, 3 mm) of SGAC (99.55% ± 0.83%) was significantly higher than that of MGAC (92.41% ± 7.19%). In 3D-ADV, the gamma pass rates (3%, 3 mm) were 99.75% ± 0.21% in global, 83.82% ± 16.98% to 93.71% ± 6.22% in the PTVs and 45.12% ± 32.78% to 98.08% ± 2.29% in the OARs. The maximum HI increment in PTVnx was 19.34%, while the maximum CI decrement in PTV1 and PTV2 were -32.45% and -6.93%, respectively. Deviations in dose volume of PTVs were all within ±5%. D2% of the brainstem, spinal cord, left/right optic nerves, and the mean doses to the left/right parotid glands maximally increased by 3.5%, 6.03%, 31.13%/26.90% and 4.78%/4.54%, respectively.

Conclusion: The 2D-PDV and global gamma pass rate might be insufficient to provide an accurate assessment for the complex NPC IMRT operation. In contrast, the 3D-ADV is superior in clinic-related quality assurance offering evaluation of organ specific pass rate and dose-volume deviations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Workflow chart of the 3D-ADV system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The incident angle of every detector in the ion-chamber array used for angular correction, Pi is the position of detector i in a raw while P 0 is the center of the raw.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hendee WR, Herman MG. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):78–82. doi: 10.1118/1.3522875. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011;38(3):1313–1338. doi: 10.1118/1.3514120. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nelms BE, Zhen HM, Tome WA. Per-beam planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011;38(2):1037–1043. doi: 10.1118/1.3544657. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boggula R, Jahnke L, Wertz H, Lohr F, Wenz F. Patient-specific 3D pretreatment and potential 3D online dose verification of Monte Carlo-calculated IMRT prostate treatment plans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(4):1168–1175. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McCurdy, Mueller L, Backman E, Venkataraman S, Fleming E, Asuni G, Jensen M, Ur-Rehman F, Pistorius S. Commissioning and validation of a novel measurement-based IMRT QA method, incorporating dose recalculation on patient CT data. Med Phys. 2008;35(6):2760-2760. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources