Electronic Portal Imaging Device in Pre-Treatment Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery

IF 0.3 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
M. Lau, R. Abdullah, J. Jayamani
{"title":"Electronic Portal Imaging Device in Pre-Treatment Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery","authors":"M. Lau, R. Abdullah, J. Jayamani","doi":"10.1017/S1460396922000334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Radiotherapy treatment delivery is evaluated by a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) procedure to ensure the patient receives an accurate radiation dose. The current PSQA practice by using conventional phantoms requires more set-up time and cost of purchasing the tools. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficiency of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of linear accelerator (LINAC) as a PSQA tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment delivery. Methods: A NPC VMAT plan on a Rando phantom was performed by following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0615 protocol. The gamma passing rate of the EPID and PSQA phantom (ArcCHECK) were compared among the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, respectively. Results: Both EPID and ArcCHECK phantom had distinguishable gamma passing rates in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a difference of 0·87% and 0·30%, respectively. Meanwhile, the EPID system had a lower gamma passing rate than the ArcCHECK phantom in 1%/1 mm (21·23% difference). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the EPID system was evaluated and had the largest deviation in gamma passing rate from the reference position in gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm (41·14%) compared to the 3%/3 mm (25·45%) and 1%/1 mm (31·78%), discretely. The best fit line of the linear regression model for EPID was steeper than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, and vice versa in gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. This indicates that the EPID had a higher sensitivity than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm but less sensitivity in 1%/1 mm. Conclusions: The EPID system was efficient in performing the PSQA test of VMAT treatment in HUSM with the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm.","PeriodicalId":44597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396922000334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background: Radiotherapy treatment delivery is evaluated by a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) procedure to ensure the patient receives an accurate radiation dose. The current PSQA practice by using conventional phantoms requires more set-up time and cost of purchasing the tools. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficiency of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of linear accelerator (LINAC) as a PSQA tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment delivery. Methods: A NPC VMAT plan on a Rando phantom was performed by following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0615 protocol. The gamma passing rate of the EPID and PSQA phantom (ArcCHECK) were compared among the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, respectively. Results: Both EPID and ArcCHECK phantom had distinguishable gamma passing rates in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a difference of 0·87% and 0·30%, respectively. Meanwhile, the EPID system had a lower gamma passing rate than the ArcCHECK phantom in 1%/1 mm (21·23% difference). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the EPID system was evaluated and had the largest deviation in gamma passing rate from the reference position in gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm (41·14%) compared to the 3%/3 mm (25·45%) and 1%/1 mm (31·78%), discretely. The best fit line of the linear regression model for EPID was steeper than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, and vice versa in gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. This indicates that the EPID had a higher sensitivity than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm but less sensitivity in 1%/1 mm. Conclusions: The EPID system was efficient in performing the PSQA test of VMAT treatment in HUSM with the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm.
电子门静脉成像装置在体积调制弧线治疗前病人特异性质量保证中的应用
摘要背景:放射治疗通过治疗前患者特异性质量保证(PSQA)程序进行评估,以确保患者获得准确的放射剂量。目前使用传统模型的PSQA实践需要更多的设置时间和购买工具的成本。因此,本研究旨在研究线性加速器(LINAC)的电子门脉成像设备(EPID)作为体积调制电弧治疗(VMAT)计划技术的PSQA工具用于鼻咽癌(NPC)治疗的效率。方法:按照放射治疗肿瘤组(RTOG)0615方案,在Rando体模上进行NPC VMAT计划。EPID和PSQA体模(ArcCHECK)的伽马通过率分别在3%/3mm、2%/2mm和1%/1mm的伽马标准之间进行比较。结果:EPID和ArcCHECK体模的γ通过率分别为3%/3mm和2%/2mm,差异分别为0.87%和0.30%。同时,EPID系统的伽马通过率比ArcCHECK体模低1%/1mm(差异21.23%)。此外,对EPID系统的灵敏度进行了评估,在伽马标准中,与3%/3mm(25.45%)和1%/1mm(31.78%)相比,EPID系统与参考位置的伽马通过率偏差最大,为2%/2mm(41.14%)。EPID的线性回归模型的最佳拟合线在3%/3mm和2%/2mm时比ArcCHECK体模更陡,在1%/1mm的伽马标准中反之亦然。这表明EPID在3%/3 mm和2%/2 mm时比ArcCHECK体模型具有更高的灵敏度,但在1%/1 mm时灵敏度较低。结论:EPID系统在HUSM中进行VMAT治疗的PSQA测试是有效的,伽玛标准为3%/3mm和2%/2mm。
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
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice is a peer-reviewed journal covering all of the current modalities specific to clinical oncology and radiotherapy. The journal aims to publish research from a wide range of styles and encourage debate and the exchange of information and opinion from within the field of radiotherapy practice and clinical oncology. The journal also aims to encourage technical evaluations and case studies as well as equipment reviews that will be of interest to an international radiotherapy audience.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信