Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Preliminary study of clinical application on IMRT three-dimensional dose verification-based EPID system.
Huang, Miaoyun; Huang, David; Zhang, Jianping; Chen, Yuangui; Xu, Benhua; Chen, Lixin.
Afiliação
  • Huang M; Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
  • Huang D; Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, China.
  • Zhang J; Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
  • Chen Y; Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
  • Xu B; Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
  • Chen L; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 18(4): 97-105, 2017 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28594085
ABSTRACT
The three-dimensional dose (3D) distribution of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was verified based on electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), and the results were analyzed. Thirty IMRT plans of different lesions were selected for 3D EPID-based dose verification. The gamma passing rates of the 3D dose verification-based EPID system (Edose, Version 3.01, Raydose, Guangdong, China) and Delta4 measurements were then compared with treatment planning system (TPS) calculations using global gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm. Furthermore, the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed using Edose. For dose verification of the 30 treatment plans, the average gamma passing rates of Edose reconstructions under the gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm were (98.58 ± 0.93)%, (95.67 ± 1.97)%, and (83.13 ± 4.53)%, respectively, whereas the Delta4 measurement results were (99.14% ± 1.16)%, (95.81% ± 2.88)%, and (84.74% ± 7.00)%, respectively. The dose differences between Edose reconstructions and TPS calculations were within 3% for D95% , D98% , and Dmean in each PTV, with the exception that the D98% of the PTV-clinical target volume (CTV) in esophageal carcinoma cases was (3.21 ± 2.33)%. However, the larger dose deviations in OARs (such as lens, parotid gland, optic nerve, and spinal cord) can be determined based on DVHs. The difference was particularly obvious for OARs with small volumes; for example, the maximum dose deviation for the lens reached (-6.12 ± 5.28)%. A comparison of the results obtained with Edose and Delta4 indicated that the Edose system could be applied for 3D pretreatment dose verification of IMRT. This system could also be utilized to evaluate the gamma passing rate of each treatment plan. Furthermore, the detailed dose distributions of PTVs and OARs could be indicated based on DVHs, providing additional reliable data for quality assurance in a clinic setting.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador / Neoplasias Esofágicas / Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada / Órgãos em Risco Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Clin Med Phys Assunto da revista: BIOFISICA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador / Neoplasias Esofágicas / Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada / Órgãos em Risco Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Clin Med Phys Assunto da revista: BIOFISICA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China