Comparison of 3DVH Software with Two-dimensional Array Systems onPretreatment Verification for Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy

Ji Hoon Park, T. Kim, Soonki Min, B. Park
{"title":"Comparison of 3DVH Software with Two-dimensional Array Systems onPretreatment Verification for Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy","authors":"Ji Hoon Park, T. Kim, Soonki Min, B. Park","doi":"10.4172/2155-9619.1000284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate the comparison of 3DVH software and two-dimensional array systems (MatriXX, ArcCHECK, and portal dosimetry system) on pretreatment verification for volumetricmodulated arc therapy. Methods: Dosimetric measurements were performed using the verification for 20 treatment plans. Measured dosimetric differences were evaluated by gamma pass rate and percentage dose difference. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) calculated by the treatment planning system were also compared with those predicted by the 3DVH software. Results: The mean gamma pass rates were more than 95% for the 3%/3 mm criterion, except for 3D evaluation using the 3DVH (3DVH (3D)) software in prostate cancer cases. In the cases of head-and-neck (HN) cancer, the mean gamma pass rates by ArcCHECK and 3DVH 2D evaluation (3DVH (2D)) were estimated to be lower than those of MatriXX, EPID, and 3DVH (3D) for the 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criteria. The percentage dose differences were within 4% for all structures, and correlated with the mean gamma pass rate for the planning target volume (PTV) and the Dmean of the spinal cord (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the mean gamma pass rates of prostate cases presented similar results for all criteria. The percentage dose differences for structure volumes in the cases of prostate cancer (from 2.76% to 12.58%) were larger than those in the cases of HN cancer, and there was no statistical significance except for the Dmax of the bladder. Conclusion: Judging from our results, the three dosimetric devices showed similar results for pretreatment verification and portal dosimetry can be replaced as the verification system. However, the use of 3DVH software remains to be a matter for further discussion.","PeriodicalId":302578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9619.1000284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate the comparison of 3DVH software and two-dimensional array systems (MatriXX, ArcCHECK, and portal dosimetry system) on pretreatment verification for volumetricmodulated arc therapy. Methods: Dosimetric measurements were performed using the verification for 20 treatment plans. Measured dosimetric differences were evaluated by gamma pass rate and percentage dose difference. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) calculated by the treatment planning system were also compared with those predicted by the 3DVH software. Results: The mean gamma pass rates were more than 95% for the 3%/3 mm criterion, except for 3D evaluation using the 3DVH (3DVH (3D)) software in prostate cancer cases. In the cases of head-and-neck (HN) cancer, the mean gamma pass rates by ArcCHECK and 3DVH 2D evaluation (3DVH (2D)) were estimated to be lower than those of MatriXX, EPID, and 3DVH (3D) for the 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criteria. The percentage dose differences were within 4% for all structures, and correlated with the mean gamma pass rate for the planning target volume (PTV) and the Dmean of the spinal cord (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the mean gamma pass rates of prostate cases presented similar results for all criteria. The percentage dose differences for structure volumes in the cases of prostate cancer (from 2.76% to 12.58%) were larger than those in the cases of HN cancer, and there was no statistical significance except for the Dmax of the bladder. Conclusion: Judging from our results, the three dosimetric devices showed similar results for pretreatment verification and portal dosimetry can be replaced as the verification system. However, the use of 3DVH software remains to be a matter for further discussion.
3DVH软件与二维阵列系统在体积调制电弧治疗预处理验证上的比较
摘要目的:本研究的目的是研究3DVH软件与二维阵列系统(MatriXX、ArcCHECK和门脉剂量测定系统)在体积调节电弧治疗预处理验证中的比较。方法:对20个治疗方案进行剂量测定。测量的剂量学差异用伽马通过率和剂量差百分比来评价。并将治疗计划系统计算的剂量-体积直方图(dvh)与3DVH软件预测的结果进行比较。结果:在前列腺癌病例中,除了使用3DVH (3D)软件进行3D评估外,3%/ 3mm标准的平均伽马通过率均大于95%。在头颈部(HN)癌的病例中,ArcCHECK和3DVH 2D评估(3DVH (2D))的平均伽马通过率估计低于MatriXX、EPID和3DVH (3D)的2%/ 2mm和1%/ 1mm标准。所有结构的剂量百分比差异均在4%以内,并与规划靶体积(PTV)的平均γ及格率和脊髓Dmean相关(p < 0.05)。另一方面,前列腺病例的平均伽玛通过率在所有标准下呈现相似的结果。前列腺癌的结构体积百分比差异(2.76% ~ 12.58%)大于HN癌,除膀胱Dmax外,差异均无统计学意义。结论:从我们的结果来看,三种剂量仪对预处理验证的结果相似,门脉剂量法可以替代作为验证系统。然而,3DVH软件的使用仍然是一个有待进一步讨论的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信