SU-E-T-26: Evaluation of New Pre-Treatment In-Air Patient Specific QA Software for TomoTherapy Treatments

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (6Part9) ◽  
pp. 3708-3708
Author(s):  
L Levinson ◽  
Q Chen ◽  
K Ding ◽  
W Renner ◽  
S Benedict ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part31) ◽  
pp. 3718-3718
Author(s):  
R David ◽  
B Zwan ◽  
J Hindmarsh ◽  
E Seymour ◽  
K Kandasamy ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Vikram Rathore ◽  
◽  
Mr. V.K Mishra ◽  
Dr. V Choudhary ◽  
Mr. G.S. Gautam ◽  
...  

Introduction: Volumetric Arc Radiotherapy (VMAT) is an advanced technique. Calculations of VMATplans are not so accurate even with State-of-Art dose calculation algorithms due to their complexity.Hence pre-treatment patient specific Quality Assurance (QA) of each VMAT plan is required. In thepresent study Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) based portal dosimetry system was used forpre-treatment patient specific QA. Material and Methods: A total of 50 patients were chosen inthis study. Verification plans of each patient were calculated for portal dosimetry then executed onthe EPID system to measure the spatial distribution of radiation dose. Calculated and measured dosedistribution were compared to evaluate Gamma Index (GI) passing criteria of Dose Difference (DD)of 3% and Distance–to-Agreement (DTA) of 3mm, Area Gamma (γ% ≤1) >95%, Average Gamma(gAve) <0.5% and Maximum Gamma (gMax) <3.5%. Results: The mean values of Area Gamma (γ%≤1) were observed to be varied from 99.14±0.23% to 99.87±0.18%. The Mean Values of AverageGamma (gAve) are found to vary from 0.19±0.05% to 0.15±0.04% and the mean values ofMaximum Gamma (gMax) found to be varied from 1.94±0.37% to 1.59±0.41%. All the plans werepassed the gamma index criteria with very good agreement. Thus the use of Portal Dosimetry forpre-treatment patient QA is found to be a very useful, quick, precise, efficient and effective pre-treatment patient specific QA tool for VMAT treatment. Conclusion: Portal Dosimetry can be utilizedfor routine use for patient specific quality assurance for Volumetric Arc Radiotherapy treatment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. S743
Author(s):  
Y. Miao ◽  
G. Kidane ◽  
A. Ifthaker ◽  
L. Crees ◽  
E. Almond

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 639-642
Author(s):  
Tobias Teichmann ◽  
Henning Salz ◽  
Michael Schwedas ◽  
Simon Howitz ◽  
Tilo Wiezorek

AbstractIn phase I of the survey a planning intercomparison of patient-related QA was performed at 12 institutions. The participating clinics created phantom based IMRT and VMAT plans which were measured utilizing the ArcCheck diode array. Mobius3D (M3D) was used in phase II. It acts as a secondary dose verification tool for patient-specific QA based on average linac beam data collected by Mobius Medical Systems. All Quasimodo linac plans will be analyzed for the continuation of the intercomparison. We aim to determine if Mobius3D is suited for use with diverse treatment techniques, if beam model customization is needed. Initially we computed first Mobius3D results by transferring all plans from phase I to our Mobius3D server. Because of some larger PTV mean dose differences we checked if output factor customization would be beneficial. We performed measurements and output factor correction to account for discrepancies in reference conditions. Compared to Mobius3D's preconfigured average beam data values, these corrected output factors differed by ±1.5% for field sizes between 7x7cm2 and 30x30cm2 and to −3.9% for 3x3cm2. Our method of correcting the output factors turns out good congruence to M3D's reference values for these medium field sizes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document