3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification.

PURPOSE: To evaluate methods of pretreatment IMRT analysis, using real measurements performed with a commercial 2D detector array, for clinical relevance and accuracy by comparing clinical DVH parameters. METHODS: We divided the work into two parts. The first part consisted of six in-phantom tests aimed to study the sensitivity of the different analysis methods. Beam fluences, 3D dose distribution, and DVH of an unaltered original plan were compared to those of the delivered plan, in which an error had been intentionally introduced. The second part consisted of comparing gamma analysis with DVH metrics for 17 patient plans from various sites. Beam fluences were measured with the MapCHECK 2 detector, per-beam planar analysis was performed with the MapCHECK software, and 3D gamma analysis and the DVH evaluation were performed using 3DVH software. RESULTS: In a per-beam gamma analysis some of the tests yielded false positives or false negatives. However, the 3DVH software correctly described the DVH of the plan which included the error. The measured DVH from the plan with controlled error agreed with the planned DVH within 2% dose or 2% volume. We also found that a gamma criterion of 3%∕3 mm was too lax to detect some of the forced errors. Global analysis masked some problems, while local analysis magnified irrelevant errors at low doses. Small hotspots were missed for all metrics due to the spatial resolution of the detector panel. DVH analysis for patient plans revealed small differences between treatment plan calculations and 3DVH results, with the exception of very small volume structures such as the eyes and the lenses. Target coverage (D(98) and D(95)) of the measured plan was systematically lower than that predicted by the treatment planning system, while other DVH characteristics varied depending on the parameter and organ. CONCLUSIONS: We found no correlation between the gamma index and the clinical impact of a discrepancy for any of the gamma index evaluation possibilities (global, local, 2D, or 3D). Some of the tests yielded false positives or false negatives in a per-beam gamma analysis. However, they were correctly accounted for in a DVH analysis. We also showed that 3DVH software is reliable for our tests, and is a viable method for correlating planar discrepancies with clinical relevance by comparing the measured DVH of target and OAR's with clinical tolerance.

Radiation dose assessment in a 320-detector-row CT scanner used in cardiac imaging.

PURPOSE: In the present era of cone-beam CT scanners, the use of the standardized CTDI100 as a surrogate of the idealized CTDI is strongly discouraged and, consequently, so should be the use of the dose-length product (DLP) as an estimate of the total energy imparted to the patient. However, the DLP is still widely used as a reference quantity to normalize the effective dose for a given scan protocol mainly because the CTDI100 is an easy-to-measure quantity. The aim of this article is therefore to describe a method for radiation dose assessment in large cone-beam single axial scans, which leads to a straightforward estimation of the total energy imparted to the patient. The authors developed a method accessible to all medical physicists and easy to implement in clinical practice in an attempt to update the bridge between CT dosimetry and the estimation of the effective dose. METHODS: The authors used commercially available material and a simple mathematical model. The method described herein is based on the dosimetry paradigm introduced by the AAPM Task Group 111. It consists of measuring the dose profiles at the center and the periphery of a long body phantom with a commercial solid-state detector. A weighted dose profile is then calculated from these measurements. To calculate the CT dosimetric quantities analytically, a Gaussian function was fitted to the dose profile data. Furthermore, the Gaussian model has the power to condense the z-axis information of the dose profile in two parameters: The single-scan central dose, f(0), and the width of the profile, sigma. To check the energy dependence of the solid-state detector, the authors compared the dose profiles to measurements made with a small volume ion chamber. To validate the overall method, the authors compared the CTDI100 calculated analytically to the measurement made with a 100 mm pencil ion chamber. RESULTS: For the central and weighted dose profiles, the authors found a good agreement between the measured dose profile data and the fitted Gaussian functions. The solid-state detector had no energy dependence--within the energy range of interest--and the analytical model succeeded in reproducing the absolute dose values obtained with the pencil ion chamber. For the case of large cone-beam single axial scans, the quantity that better characterizes the total energy imparted to the patient is the weighted dose profile integral (DPI(w)). The DPI(w) can be easily determined from the two parameters that define the Gaussian functions: f(0) and sigma. The authors found that the DLP underestimated the total energy imparted to the patient by more than 20%. The authors also found that the calculated CT dosimetric quantities were higher than those displayed on the scanner console. CONCLUSIONS: The authors described and validated a method to assess radiation dose in large cone-beam single axial scans. This method offers a simple and more accurate estimation of the total energy imparted to the patient, thus offering the possibility to update the bridge between CT dosimetry and the estimation of the effective dose for cone-beam CT examinations in radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiation therapy.