According to the 3%/2 mm criterion, Setup1 allowed treatment with 98.76%, whereas thisvalue was below our acceptance limit with 88.39% for Setup 2.CONCLUSIONIn addition to the standard IMRT patient QA procedure, we are of the opinion that the use of clinicallydifferent dosimetric equipment provides an idea of the control of different grid size values of TPS calculationalgorithms.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVEIn Patient Quality Assurance measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, this studyaimed to investigate the dosimetric differences between the calculated and measured values when thestandard dosimetric equipment contains the different density materials.METHODSIn this study, a setup that can be used for both absolute dose and planar dose distribution is consideredaimed to investigate the effects of the selected grid size value in the treatment planning system on theMonitor Unit, 2D array gamma evaluation and absorbed dose measurements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Also, the effects of usingdifferent “distance to agreement” values and the effects of using cylindrical/inhomogeneous phantominstead of square/homogeneous on 2D array gamma evaluation and absorbed dose measurements wereinvestigated.RESULTSThe considerable difference between the calculated dose and measured dose for grid size 0.1 cm wasfound to be 2.96% for the square/homogeneous phantom and 5.75% for the cylindrical/inhomogeneousphantom.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the 3%/2 mm criterion, Setup1 allowed treatment with 98.76%, whereas thisvalue was below our acceptance limit with 88.39% for Setup 2.CONCLUSIONIn addition to the standard IMRT patient QA procedure, we are of the opinion that the use of clinicallydifferent dosimetric equipment provides an idea of the control of different grid size values of TPS calculationalgorithms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
OBJECTIVEIn Patient Quality Assurance measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, this studyaimed to investigate the dosimetric differences between the calculated and measured values when thestandard dosimetric equipment contains the different density materials.METHODSIn this study, a setup that can be used for both absolute dose and planar dose distribution is consideredaimed to investigate the effects of the selected grid size value in the treatment planning system on theMonitor Unit, 2D array gamma evaluation and absorbed dose measurements. Also, the effects of usingdifferent “distance to agreement” values and the effects of using cylindrical/inhomogeneous phantominstead of square/homogeneous on 2D array gamma evaluation and absorbed dose measurements wereinvestigated.RESULTSThe considerable difference between the calculated dose and measured dose for grid size 0.1 cm wasfound to be 2.96% for the square/homogeneous phantom and 5.75% for the cylindrical/inhomogeneousphantom. According to the 3%/2 mm criterion, Setup1 allowed treatment with 98.76%, whereas thisvalue was below our acceptance limit with 88.39% for Setup 2.CONCLUSIONIn addition to the standard IMRT patient QA procedure, we are of the opinion that the use of clinicallydifferent dosimetric equipment provides an idea of the control of different grid size values of TPS calculationalgorithms.
🔖
Cite This Article
ÜNAL, R., İNAL, A., SARPÜN, İ. H. (2022). A Different Approach to Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Patient QA Measurements about Dosimetric Equipment. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 3, 298–305. https://ajindex.com/articles/639135
Portelance L, Chao KS, Grigsby PW, Bennet H, Low D. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces small bowel, rectum, and bladder doses in patients with cervical cancer receiving pelvic and para-aortic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51(1):261–6
Bayouth JE, Wendt D, Morrill SM. MLC quality assurance techniques for IMRT applications. Med Phys 2003;30(5):743–50
Chui CS, Spirou S, LoSasso T. Testing of dynamic multileaf collimation. Med Phys 1996;23(5):635–41
LoSasso T, Chui CS, Ling CC. Comprehensive quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy with a multileaf collimator used in the dynamic mode. Med Phys 2001;28(11):2209–19
Gopi S, Ganesan S, Aruna P, Bouchaib R, Supe SS. Influence of photon beam energy on IMRT plan quality for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2009;14(1):18–31
Bhardwaj AK, Sharma SC, Rana B, Shukla A. Study of 2D ion chamber array for angular response and QA of dynamic MLC and pretreatment IMRT plans. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2009;14(3):89–94
Winiecki J, Morgas T, Majewska K, Drzewiecka B. The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2009;14(5):162–8
Slosarek K, Szlag M, Bekman B, Grzadziel A. EPID in vivo dosimetry in RapidArc technique. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2010;15(1):8–14
Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the gamma index and the gamma index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Phys Med Biol 2005;50(3):399–411
Wiezorek T, Banz N, Schwedas M, Scheithauer M, Salz H, Georg D, et al. Dosimetric quality assurance for intensity- modulated radiotherapy feasibility study for a filmless approach. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181(7):468–74
Alber M, Broggi S, Wagter CD, Eichwurzel I, Engstrom P, Fiorino C, et al. Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. Brussels, Belgium: ESTRO; 2008
Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 2009;36(11):5359–73
Pathak P, Mishra PK, Birbiya N. Dosimetric Study on Variations of Gamma Index (GI) in Pre-Treatment Verification Procedure in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Plans with Varying Grid Sizes Using 2D Array Detectors. J Cancer Sci Ther 2015;7:161–6
Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for