We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery requires pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for the dosimetry verification due to its complex multileaf-collimator movement. The prostate target close position between the bladder and rectum requires a tight margin during planning, and mistreatment would have a huge impact on the patient. A commercially available QA tool consists of a homogeneous medium and does not represent an exact photon interaction on the tumour and also on the nearby healthy organ.
Objective:
A heterogeneous male pelvis phantom was developed and investigated the efficiency of the treatment planning system (TPS) calculation on the off-axis region.
Methods:
Polymethyl methacrylate was used for the phantom housing, and the material closed to the bladder, rectum and prostate density was chosen to construct the organ models. The phantom was scanned and validated by the computed tomography number and density. An IMRT treatment was planned in the Monaco TPS, and a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD-100) was used to validate the point dosimetry. In addition, an EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation was carried out to validate the phantom dosimetry.
Results & Discussion:
The dose measurement between TLD-100, TPS, and EGSnrc was compared and validated in the pelvis phantom. In the prostate region, the dose difference was within ± 5%, and the maximum dose difference outside-the-irradiated field was up to 20·07 % and 47·31 % in TPS and TLD-100, respectively. Meanwhile, the measured dose was lower than the calculated dose, and it was apparent for the dose outside-the-irradiated field.
Conclusion:
The developed heterogeneity male pelvis phantom was validated and verified to be an important QA device for validating radiation dosimetry in the pelvis region. The dose outside-the-irradiated field was underestimated by both TPS and TLD, respectively.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.