Published October 1, 2012 | Version v1
Journal article

A Quality Assurance Method that Utilizes 3D Dosimetry and Facilitates Clinical Interpretation

  • 1. Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (United States)
  • 2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  • 3. Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey (United States)

Description

Purpose: To demonstrate a new three-dimensional (3D) quality assurance (QA) method that provides comprehensive dosimetry verification and facilitates evaluation of the clinical significance of QA data acquired in a phantom. Also to apply the method to investigate the dosimetric efficacy of base-of-skull (BOS) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment. Methods and Materials: Two types of IMRT QA verification plans were created for 6 patients who received BOS IMRT. The first plan enabled conventional 2D planar IMRT QA using the Varian portal dosimetry system. The second plan enabled 3D verification using an anthropomorphic head phantom. In the latter, the 3D dose distribution was measured using the DLOS/Presage dosimetry system (DLOS = Duke Large-field-of-view Optical-CT System, Presage Heuris Pharma, Skillman, NJ), which yielded isotropic 2-mm data throughout the treated volume. In a novel step, measured 3D dose distributions were transformed back to the patient's CT to enable calculation of dose–volume histograms (DVH) and dose overlays. Measured and planned patient DVHs were compared to investigate clinical significance. Results: Close agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions was observed for all 6 cases. For gamma criteria of 3%, 2 mm, the mean passing rate for portal dosimetry was 96.8% (range, 92.0%–98.9%), compared to 94.9% (range, 90.1%–98.9%) for 3D. There was no clear correlation between 2D and 3D passing rates. Planned and measured dose distributions were evaluated on the patient's anatomy, using DVH and dose overlays. Minor deviations were detected, and the clinical significance of these are presented and discussed. Conclusions: Two advantages accrue to the methods presented here. First, treatment accuracy is evaluated throughout the whole treated volume, yielding comprehensive verification. Second, the clinical significance of any deviations can be assessed through the generation of DVH curves and dose overlays on the patient's anatomy. The latter step represents an important development that advances the clinical relevance of complex treatment QA.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.015

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.015;
PII
S0360-3016(11)03670-4;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Journal Volume
84
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 540-546
ISSN
0360-3016
CODEN
IOBPD3

INIS

Country of Publication
United States
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
44104214
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
ACCURACY; DOSIMETRY; EVALUATION; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SKULL; VERIFICATION
Descriptors DEC
BODY; DOSES; MEDICINE; MOCKUP; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; RADIOLOGY; SKELETON; STRUCTURAL MODELS; THERAPY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2012 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.