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
. 2022 May 19;27(2):189-197.
doi: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0027. eCollection 2022.

Comparison of pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry for advanced radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Agnieszka Bartnikowska  1   2 , Grzegorz Cieślik  1 , Mateusz Młodzik  1 , Miguel Garcia-Argibay  3
Affiliations

Comparison of pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry for advanced radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Agnieszka Bartnikowska et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. .

Abstract

Background: The usage of advanced radiotherapy techniques requires validation of a previously calculated dose with the precise delivery with a linear accelerator. This study aimed to review and evaluate new verification methods of dose distribution. Moreover, our purpose was to define an internal protocol of acceptance for in-vivo measurements of dose distribution.

Materials and methods: This study included 43 treatment plans of prostate cancer calculated using the Monte Carlo algorithm. All plans were delivered using the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) technique of advanced radiotherapy by the linear accelerator Elekta VersaHD. The dose distribution was verified using: MatriXX, iViewDose, and in-vivo measurements. The verification also included recalculation of fluence maps of quality assurance plans in another independent algorithm.

Results: The acceptance criterion of 95% points of dose in agreement was found for pre-treatment verification using MatriXX; the average γ value was 99.09 ± 0.93 (SD) and 99.64 ± 0.35 (SD) for recalculation in the Collapse Cone algorithm. Moreover, using the second algorithm in the verification process showed a positive correlation ρ = 0.58, p < 0.001. However, verification using iViewDose in a phantom and in-vivo did not meet this γ-pass rate.

Conclusions: Evaluation of gamma values for in-vivo measurements utilizing iViewDose software was helpful to establish an internal dosimetry protocol for prostate cancer treatments. We assumed value at a minimum of 50% points of the dose in agreement with the 3%/3 mm criterion as an acceptable compliance level. The recalculated dose distribution of QA plans in regard to the Collapse Cone algorithm in the other treatment planning system can be used as a pre-treatment verification method used by a medical physicist in their daily work. The effectiveness of use in iViewDose software, as a pre-treatment tool, is still debatable, unlike the MatriXX device.

Keywords: dosimetry; in-vivo dosimetry; prostate cancer; quality assurance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interests None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The relation between gamma index values verified by: 1-MatriXX and 2-iViewDose (A). 2-iViewDose and 3-in-vivo (B), 1-MatriXX (MC) and 4-miniMatriXX (MC-CC ) (C)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization, Latest global cancer data. 2018. https://www.who.int/cancer/PRGlobocanFinal.pdf .
    1. Levitt S, Khan F, Potish R, Perez CA. Technological Basis of radiation therapy. Clinical Applications: Williams & Wilkins; 1999. pp. 128–133.
    1. Ryu JK, Winter K, Michalski JM, et al. Interim report of toxicity from 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for prostate cancer on 3DOG/RTOG 9406, level III (79.2 Gy) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(4):1036–1046. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03006-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dursun P, Taşkın Z, Altınel İ. The determination of optimal treatment plans for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Eur J Oper Res. 2019;272(1):372–388. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.06.023. - DOI
    1. Wilkins A, Mossop H, Syndikus I, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1605–1616. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00280-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources