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
. 2015 May 8;16(3):5202.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i3.5202.

Comparison between two different algorithms used for pretreatment QA via aSi portal images

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison between two different algorithms used for pretreatment QA via aSi portal images

Charbel Merheb et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

Several algorithms exist to perform quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments based on electronic portal imaging devices (EPID). These algorithms are used to compare doses (convert into water, GLAaS) and fluences (in amorphous silicon (aSi), Varian portal dosimetry). The aim of this study is to compare the two methods using clinical data. In this study, Varian portal dosimetry (VPD) and Epiqa solutions were compared. We used a same set of patient images data treated with 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies and different locations. The response of the portal imaging device was also investigated with different field sizes, monitor units, dose rates, sag effect, and linac daily output. All images were acquired on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) positioned at source detector distance (SDD) of 100 cm. A virtual water phantom was used for Epiqa to calculate the dose matrices at the maximum depth doses dmax. The 2D gamma evaluation index (GAI) was performed to quantitatively compare the results given by the two solutions. The response of the EPID gave a good agreement with Epiqa (deviation less than 1%) for MU greater than 20 for both 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies. For VPD, the upward sloping trend showed a good agreement for MU higher than 50. Dose rate evaluations for both methods gave a deviation of, respectively, 0.4 and 0.5 % for 6 MV and 20 MV. The gamma criteria of 3 mm for distance to agreement and 3 % for dose difference was, as mean ± 1SD, 99.81% ± 1.48% and 99.42% ± 0.97% for VPD and Epiqa, respectively, for 6 MV photon energy. The mean values of the gamma criteria for the collected data using 20 MV photon energy were, respectively, 98.33% ± 2.41% and 98.12% ± 1.99% for VPD and Epiqa. The output constancy deviation correction (a 10 × 10cm² reference field plan to obtain absorbed dose despite the linac monitor daily variations) showed a mean deviation of, respectively, 0.07% ± 0.57% and 0.16% ± 1.38% for 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies. For sag effect, a slight improvement was noticed for realignment of the integrated image and was 0.25%± 0.69% for 6 MV and 0.40% ± 0.57% for 20 MV. The clinical data were used for pretreatment QA with the two systems, both VPD and Epiqa software, showed acceptable and similar results for low and high energies. Furthermore, Epiqa shows better linearity response for low MU.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Difference between measured and calculated dose, function of monitored unit for photons 6 MV (a) and 20 MV (b) photon energies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Difference between measured and calculated dose, function of field size for 6 MV (a) and 20 MV (b) photon energies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Difference between measured and calculated dose, function of dose rate for 6 MV (a) and 20 MV (b) photon energies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Gamma criteria results (ΔD=3%,DTA=3mm) for all acquisitions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Results of ΔGAI (gamma criteria) for Epiqa and VPD, respectively, 6 and 20 MV photon energies and [ΔD/DTA=3%/3mm].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Results of Epiqa with and without linac monitor daily variation, 6 and 20 MV photon energies (ΔD/DTA=3%/3mm).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison of Epiqa linac daily outputs (corrected‐uncorrected), 6 and 20 MV photon energies (ΔD=3%,DTA=3mm).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Comparison of VPD aligned vs. unaligned matrix, 6 and 20 MV photon energies (ΔD=3%,DTA=3mm).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Deviation of VPD matrix (aligned‐unaligned), 6 and 20 MV photon energies (ΔD=3%,DTA=3mm).

Similar articles

References

    1. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):310–17. - PubMed
    1. Bush K, Townson R, Zavgorodni S. Monte Carlo simulation of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(19):N359–N370. - PubMed
    1. Buonamici FB, Compagnucci A, Marrazzo L, Russo S, Bucciolini M. An intercomparison between film dosimetry and diode matrix for IMRT quality assurance. Med Phys. 2007;34(4):1372–79. - PubMed
    1. Schreibmann E, Dhabaan A, Elder E, Fox T. Patient‐specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys. 2009;36(10):4530–35. - PubMed
    1. Bailey DW, Kumaraswamy L, Bakhtiari M, Malhotra HK, Podgorsak MB. EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys [Electronic version]. 2012;13(4):3736 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766944 - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources