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
. 2017 Jan;18(1):170-177.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12025.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Affiliations

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Daniel G McDonald et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the Mobius second-check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization-chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

Methods: Seventeen anonymized intensity-modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization-chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

Results: The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from -3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was -1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from -3.0 to -0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre-clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was -0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity-modulated cases, post-clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre-clinical test cases.

Conclusion: Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second-check of a modern TPS.

Keywords: IMRT; VMAT; Mobius; Mobius verification phantom; eclipse acuros.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mobius MVP. Mobius MVP with seven available ionization chamber positions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Eclipse AcurosXB and Mobius calculated dose compared to measured dose. Percent differences between dose calculated with Eclipse AcurosXB and Mobius, and dose measured with ionization chamber in the MVP. Eclipse vs. measurement percent difference is plotted vertically on the Y axis, while Mobius vs. measurement is plotted horizontally on the X axis. Data points are categorized by treatment planning technique.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Target DVH calculated by Mobius and Eclipse AcurosXB. Typical target DVH curves calculated by Mobius (dotted) and Eclipse AcurosXB (solid) are shown.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mobius vs. Eclipse AcurosXB gamma map for selected treatment plan. Mobius vs. Eclipse AcurosXB gamma map (3%, 2 mm) is shown for treatment plan 16. Yellow and blue areas represent high and low gamma failures, respectively. Note the typical areas of gamma failure at each beam entrance due to differences in the build‐up model, and heterogeneous areas in the lung and bone.

References

    1. Childress N, Stevens E, Eklund D, Zhang M. Mobius3D White Paper: Dose Calculation Algorithm. Houston, TX: Mobius Medical Systems LP; 2012.
    1. Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW, et al. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non‐IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38:504–530. - PubMed
    1. Clemente‐Gutiérrez F, Pérez‐Vara C. Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16 Retrieved from http://www.jacmp.org/ February 14, 2016. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nelson CL, Mason BE, Robinson RC, Kisling KD, Kirsner SM. Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15 Retrieved from http://www.jacmp.org/ February 14, 2016. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fontenot JD. Evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15 Retrieved from http://www.jacmp.org/ February 14, 2016. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources