scholarly journals Dosimetric characteristics of a cubic-block-piled compensator for intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the Pinnacle radiotherapy treatment planning system

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koji Sasaki ◽  
Yasunori Obata
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning using head and neck phantom

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 239-245
Author(s):  
Zahra ◽  
Jalil ur Rehman ◽  
H M Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar ◽  
Nisar Ahmad ◽  
Zaheer Abbas Gilani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning ◽  
Convolution Algorithm

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study is the verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) head neck treatment planning with one-dimensional and two-dimensional (2D) dosimeters using imaging and radiation oncology core (IROC) Houston head & neck (H&N) phantom.MethodThe image of the H&N phantom was obtained by computed tomography scan which was then transferred to Pinnacle@3 treatment planning system (TPS) for treatment planning. The contouring of the target volumes and critical organ were done manually and dose constraints were set for each organ according to IROC prescription. The plan was optimised by adoptive convolution algorithm to meet the IROC criteria and collapse cone convolution algorithm calculated the delivered doses for treatment. Varian Clinac 2110 was used to deliver the treatment plan to the phantom, the process of irradiation and measurement were repeated three times for reproducibility and reliability. The treatment plan was verified by measuring the doses from thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic external beam therapy 2 films. The agreement between the planned and delivered doses were checked by calculating the percentage dose differences, analysing their isodose line profiles and 2D gamma maps.ResultsThe average percent dose difference of 1·8% was obtained between computed doses by TPS and measured doses from TLDs, however these differences were found to be higher for organ at risk. The film dose profile was well in agreement with the planned dose distribution with distance to agreement of 1·5 mm. The gamma analysis of the computed and recorded doses passed the criteria of 3%/3 mm with passing percentages of >96%, which shows successful authentication of delivered doses for IMRT.ConclusionIMRT pre-treatment validation can be done with IROC anthropomorphic phantoms, which is essential for the delivery of modulated radiotherapies. It was concluded that films and TLDs can be used as quality assurance tools for IMRT.

Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning: a dosimetric comparison

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saima Altaf ◽  
Khalid Iqbal ◽  
Muhammad Akram ◽  
Saeed A. Buzdar
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Passing Rates

AbstractAimThe purpose of this study was to analyse the comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using Gafchromic® EBT3 film, Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and MapCHECK®2.BackgroundPretreatment authentication is the main apprehension in advanced radiation therapy treatment plans such as IMRT.Materials and methodsA total of 20 patients were planned on Eclipse treatment planning system using 6 and 15 MV separately.ResultsGamma index of EBT3 film results shows the following average passing rates: 97% for 6 MV and 96·6% for 15 MV using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm for brain. However, by using ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm criteria, the average passing rates were 95·4% on 6 MV and 95·2% on 15 MV for prostate. For EPID, the results show the average passing rates as 97·8% for 6 MV and 97·2% for 15 MV in for brain. In cases in which ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm were used, the average passing rates were 96·6% for 6 MVand 96·1% for 15 MV for prostate. MapCHECK®2 results show average passing rates of 96·4% for 6 and 96·2% for 15 MV, respectively, for brain using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm, whereas for ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm the average rates are 95·2% for 6 and 94·7% for 15 MV in prostate.ConclusionsThe EPID results are better than the other methods, and hence EPID can be used effectively for IMRT pretreatment verifications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document