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
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Jul;197(7):633-643.
doi: 10.1007/s00066-021-01749-6. Epub 2021 Feb 16.

Improving dose delivery accuracy with EPID in vivo dosimetry: results from a multicenter study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Improving dose delivery accuracy with EPID in vivo dosimetry: results from a multicenter study

M Esposito et al. Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate critical aspects and effectiveness of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) tests obtained by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in a multicenter and multisystem context.

Materials and methods: Eight centers with three commercial systems-SoftDiso (SD, Best Medical Italy, Chianciano, Italy), Dosimetry Check (DC, Math Resolution, LCC), and PerFRACTION (PF, Sun Nuclear Corporation, SNC, Melbourne, FL)-collected IVD results for a total of 2002 patients and 32,276 tests. Data are summarized for IVD software, radiotherapy technique, and anatomical site. Every center reported the number of patients and tests analyzed, and the percentage of tests outside of the tolerance level (OTL%). OTL% was categorized as being due to incorrect patient setup, incorrect use of immobilization devices, incorrect dose computation, anatomical variations, and unknown causes.

Results: The three systems use different approaches and customized alert indices, based on local protocols. For Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments OTL% mean values were up to 8.9% for SD, 18.0% for DC, and 16.0% for PF. Errors due to "anatomical variations" for head and neck were up to 9.0% for SD and DC and 8.0% for PF systems, while for abdomen and pelvis/prostate treatments were up to 9%, 17.0%, and 9.0% for SD, DC, and PF, respectively. The comparison among techniques gave 3% for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, 7.0% (range 4.7-8.9%) for VMAT, 10.4% (range 7.0-12.2%) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 13.2% (range 8.8-21.0%) for 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy.

Conclusion: The results obtained with different IVD software and among centers were consistent and showed an acceptable homogeneity. EPID IVD was effective in intercepting important errors.

Keywords: Error detection; Online dosimetry; Online measurements; Portal dosimetry; Quality assurance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization (2008) Radiotherapy risk profile technical manual. WHO/IER/PSP/2008.12. World Health Organization, Geneva
    1. International Atomic Energy Agency (2013) Development of procedures for in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy. IAEA Human Health Report No. 8. IAEA, Vienna
    1. McCurdy BM, McCowan PM (2017) In vivo dosimetry for lung radiotherapy including SBRT. Phys Med 44:123–130 - DOI
    1. McCowan PM, Asuni G, Van Uytven E, VanBeek T, McCurdy BM, Loewen SK et al (2017) Clinical implementation of a model-based in vivo dose verification system for stereotactic body radiation therapy–volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments using the electronic portal imaging device. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97(5):1077–1084 - DOI
    1. MacDougall ND, Graveling M, Hansen VN, Brownsword K, Morgan A (2017) In vivo dosimetry in UK external beam radiotherapy: current and future usage. J Radiol 90(1072):20160915 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources