SU-FF-T-235: Patient-Specific QA of Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy with 2D Diode Array: Initial Experience

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6Part12) ◽  
pp. 2574-2575 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Tang ◽  
B Yi
2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part17) ◽  
pp. 3524-3525
Author(s):  
C Curley ◽  
Z Ouhib ◽  
T Leventouri

2020 ◽  
Vol 173 ◽  
pp. 108885
Author(s):  
Long Bai ◽  
Qing Xiao ◽  
Qiang Wang ◽  
Jianling Zhao ◽  
Guangjun Li ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-578
Author(s):  
Satoshi Nakamura ◽  
Hiroyuki Okamoto ◽  
Akihisa Wakita ◽  
Rei Umezawa ◽  
Kana Takahashi ◽  
...  

Abstract There are many reports concerning patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, reports about the statistical results of QA are lacking. Management methods for the results of the QA are needed, even though we have the ESTRO group recommendation that a tolerance limit of 1.96 standard deviation (SD) be established in each institution. The purpose of this study was to establish a management method for determining the tolerance limit and to report the statistical results of patient-specific QA. From April 2006 to March 2015, five linacs in the National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, were used to treat 1185 patients with IMRT. Patient-specific QA was performed using an ion chamber, films, and some detectors. To establish a management method for the results, differences between the measured and calculated doses in the ion chamber were analyzed for each linac, each phantom, and each treatment site. The overall mean dose difference was 0.5 ± 1.3%, and the mean dose difference in each linac was 0.6 ± 1.2%, 0.9 ± 1.3%, −0.4 ± 1.4%, −0.1 ± 1.2% and −0.1 ± 0.9%. The difference between linacs and between treatment sites was significant (P < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). The proportion of the dose difference within ±3% was 97.7%, and that was improved from 2006 to 2014. The results of the patient-specific QA should be managed for each linac and each treatment site in order to decide the suitable tolerance limit. Reports of statistical results will be helped if a new tolerance limit and action level will be considered.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31
Author(s):  
Abu Kausar ◽  
Karthick R. Mani ◽  
Hasin A. Azhari ◽  
Golam A. Zakaria

AbstractAimThe purpose of this study was to develop the patient-specific quality control (QC) process by most commonly used dosimeters in Bangladesh and recommend a suitable passing rate for QC, irrespective of the dosimetric tools used.Materials and methodsIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans of five head-and-neck (HN) and five prostate patients were selected for the patient-specific QC. These plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS v11·0 (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) 6 MV X-ray from a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.) for each case. Each IMRT and VMAT plans were measured by two-dimensional (2D) ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) and electronic portal imaging devices (EPID), respectively. The passing rates of the dosimetric tools were calculated using criteria of 3%/3 mm.ResultsThe average passing rates (±SD) of I’matriXX for prostate and HN were 97·9±0·76 and 98·88±0·24, respectively. For VMAT verification, the average passing rates of EPID for prostate for arc1 and arc2 were 96·15±0·49 and 97·8±0·70, respectively; similarly, for HN the rates were 97·85±0·63 and 97·2±0·56, respectively.ConclusionThe results showed that both the dosimeters can be used in patient-specific QC, although the EPID-based IMRT and VMAT QC is more advantageous in terms of time-saving and ease of use. Hence, for patient-specific QC, one can use the ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) or EPID in hospital, but the systems need to be cross-checked.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document