Comparison of three film analysis softwares using EBT2 and EBT3 films in radiotherapy.

Introduction The purpose of the study was to compare the results of gamma value based film analysis according to the used type of self-developer film and software product. Material and methods The films were irradiated with different treatment techniques such as 3D conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy with static and rotational delivery. Stereotactic plans with conformal and intensity modulated arc techniques, using coplanar and non-coplanar beam setup were also evaluated. The data of irradiated film were compared with the planned planar dose distribution exported from the treatment planning system. Three film analysis software programs were evaluated: PTW Mephysto (PTW), FilmQA Pro (FQP) and radiohromic.com(RC). Both EBT2 and EBT3 types of films were examined. The comparisons of dose distributions were performed with gamma analysis using 10% cut-off level. Results The results of the gamma analysis for larger fields were between 78.3% and 98.3%, 75.7% and 100%, 80.2% and 98.8% with PTW, FQP and RC, respectively. The results of evaluation in case of stereotactic measurements were 76.8%-99.2% for PTW, 95.7%-100% for FQP and 91.2%-99.9% for RC. Conclusions All the three software programs are suitable for calibrating and evaluating films, performing gamma analysis, and can be used for patient specific quality assurance measurements. There is no direct connection between gamma passing rate and absolute accuracy or software quality, it is just a feature of the software. The interpretation of own results has to be defined on an institutional level according to given workflow and preliminary results.

Measurement of dose exposure of image guidance in external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation: Evaluation of different techniques and linear accelerators.

INTRODUCTION: Verifying the patient position is always an essential part of the treatment process, especially in hypofractionated treatments such as accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). The purpose of the study was to compare five image guidance techniques with respect to imaging dose and image quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We chose five types of imaging methods applicable for APBI and measured their dose exposure on four different accelerators (Synergy, TrueBeam, Artiste and CyberKnife). Absorbed dose was measured with ionization chamber in thorax phantom. Besides dose exposure image quality was also compared. RESULTS: The lowest dose exposure was measured with kV-kV planar imaging followed by kV-CBCT, MV-MV pair and MV-CBCT in ascending order. Average phantom dose with kV-kV image pair on CyberKnife was 0.01 cGy as the lowest and with MV-CBCT on Artiste was 7.11 cGy as the highest. Average dose exposures of MV-MV images with TrueBeam, Synergy and Artiste were 1.18 cGy, 2.13 cGy and 1.61 cGy, respectively, with similar image quality. For the same machines the doses of kV-CT imaging were comparable: 0.65 cGy, 0.65 cGy and 0.52 cGy, with some differences in image quality. MV-CBCT technique resulted in the highest dose and poorest image quality. CONCLUSIONS: In APBI the position of the patient and tumour bed can be verified with many tools. When fiducials are available, often 2D imaging is enough to achieve appropriate positioning and the kV-kV method is recommended. Imaging with 2.5MV can also be a good solution instead of 6MV. Without fiducials 3D images should be acquired and the recommended method is the kV-CBCT.