Evaluation of a 3D-printed heterogeneous anthropomorphic head and neck phantom for patient-specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriyuki Kadoya ◽  
Kota Abe ◽  
Hikaru Nemoto ◽  
Kiyokazu Sato ◽  
Yoshiro Ieko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
3D Printed

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Lan ◽  
Hoang Dai Viet ◽  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
James C. L. Chow
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Target Volumes

Abstract Purpose: This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and methods: A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany). Results: The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF). Conclusions: It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.

scholarly journals A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient-specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Both ◽  
Ionut M. Alecu ◽  
Andrada R. Stan ◽  
Marius Alecu ◽  
Andrei Ciura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated

scholarly journals A comparison of the quality assurance of four dosimetric tools for intensity modulated radiation therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaeman Son ◽  
Taesung Baek ◽  
Boram Lee ◽  
Dongho Shin ◽  
Sung Yong Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Passing Rates ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Patient Specific Qa

Abstract Background. This study was designed to compare the quality assurance (QA) results of four dosimetric tools used for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to suggest universal criteria for the passing rate in QA, irrespective of the dosimetric tool used. Materials and methods. Thirty fields of IMRT plans from five patients were selected, followed by irradiation onto radiochromic film, a diode array (Mapcheck), an ion chamber array (MatriXX) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for patient-specific QA. The measured doses from the four dosimetric tools were compared with the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. The passing rates of the four dosimetric tools were calculated using the gamma index method, using as criteria a dose difference of 3% and a distance-to-agreement of 3 mm. Results. The QA results based on Mapcheck, MatriXX and EPID showed good agreement, with average passing rates of 99.61%, 99.04% and 99.29%, respectively. However, the average passing rate based on film measurement was significantly lower, 95.88%. The average uncertainty (1 standard deviation) of passing rates for 6 intensity modulated fields was around 0.31 for film measurement, larger than those of the other three dosimetric tools. Conclusions. QA results and consistencies depend on the choice of dosimetric tool. Universal passing rates should depend on the normalization or inter-comparisons of dosimetric tools if more than one dosimetric tool is used for patient specific QA.

Quality assurance of the jaws only-intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for head-and-neck cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 148-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
Nguyen Dong Son ◽  
Truong Thi Hong Loan ◽  
H.P.W Anson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document