skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-49: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT

Abstract

Purpose: AAPM TG114 does not cover the independent verification for IMRT. We conducted a study of independent dose verification for IMRT in seven institutes to show the feasibility. Methods: 384 IMRT plans in the sites of prostate and head and neck (HN) were collected from the institutes, where the planning was performed using Eclipse and Pinnacle3 with the two techniques of step and shoot (S&S) and sliding window (SW). All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson-based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. An ion-chamber measurement in a water-equivalent slab phantom was performed to compare the doses computed using the TPS and an independent dose verification program. Additionally, the agreement in dose computed in patient CT images between using the TPS and using the SMU was assessed. The dose of the composite beams in the plan was evaluated. Results: The agreement between the measurement and the SMU were −2.3±1.9 % and −5.6±3.6 % for prostate and HN sites, respectively. The agreement between the TPSs and the SMU were −2.1±1.9 % and −3.0±3.7 for prostate and HN sites, respectively. There was amore » negative systematic difference with similar standard deviation and the difference was larger in the HN site. The S&S technique showed a statistically significant difference between the SW. Because the Clarkson-based method in the independent program underestimated (cannot consider) the dose under the MLC. Conclusion: The accuracy would be improved when the Clarkson-based algorithm should be modified for IMRT and the tolerance level would be within 5%.« less

Authors:
;  [1]; ;  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7]
  1. The National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba (Japan)
  2. The Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR, Koutou-ku, Tokyo (Japan)
  3. Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa-prefecture (Japan)
  4. The National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo (Japan)
  5. Otemae Hospital, Chuou-ku, Osaka-city (Japan)
  6. Itabashi Central General Hospital, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo (Japan)
  7. Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Hyogo (Japan)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22545180
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; HEAD; IMAGE PROCESSING; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; NECK; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Baba, H, Tachibana, H, Kamima, T, Takahashi, R, Kawai, D, Sugawara, Y, Yamamoto, T, Sato, A, and Yamashita, M. SU-E-T-49: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924410.
Baba, H, Tachibana, H, Kamima, T, Takahashi, R, Kawai, D, Sugawara, Y, Yamamoto, T, Sato, A, & Yamashita, M. SU-E-T-49: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924410.
Baba, H, Tachibana, H, Kamima, T, Takahashi, R, Kawai, D, Sugawara, Y, Yamamoto, T, Sato, A, and Yamashita, M. Mon . "SU-E-T-49: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924410.
@article{osti_22545180,
title = {SU-E-T-49: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT},
author = {Baba, H and Tachibana, H and Kamima, T and Takahashi, R and Kawai, D and Sugawara, Y and Yamamoto, T and Sato, A and Yamashita, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: AAPM TG114 does not cover the independent verification for IMRT. We conducted a study of independent dose verification for IMRT in seven institutes to show the feasibility. Methods: 384 IMRT plans in the sites of prostate and head and neck (HN) were collected from the institutes, where the planning was performed using Eclipse and Pinnacle3 with the two techniques of step and shoot (S&S) and sliding window (SW). All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson-based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. An ion-chamber measurement in a water-equivalent slab phantom was performed to compare the doses computed using the TPS and an independent dose verification program. Additionally, the agreement in dose computed in patient CT images between using the TPS and using the SMU was assessed. The dose of the composite beams in the plan was evaluated. Results: The agreement between the measurement and the SMU were −2.3±1.9 % and −5.6±3.6 % for prostate and HN sites, respectively. The agreement between the TPSs and the SMU were −2.1±1.9 % and −3.0±3.7 for prostate and HN sites, respectively. There was a negative systematic difference with similar standard deviation and the difference was larger in the HN site. The S&S technique showed a statistically significant difference between the SW. Because the Clarkson-based method in the independent program underestimated (cannot consider) the dose under the MLC. Conclusion: The accuracy would be improved when the Clarkson-based algorithm should be modified for IMRT and the tolerance level would be within 5%.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924410},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: To show the results of a multi-institutional study of the independent dose verification for conventional, Stereotactic radiosurgery and body radiotherapy (SRS and SBRT) plans based on the action level of AAPM TG-114. Methods: This study was performed at 12 institutions in Japan. To eliminate the bias of independent dose verification program (Indp), all of the institutions used the same CT-based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis, Triangle Products, JP) with the Clarkson-based algorithm. Eclipse (AAA, PBC), Pinnacle{sup 3} (Adaptive Convolve) and Xio (Superposition) were used as treatment planning system (TPS). The confidence limits (CL, Mean±2SD) for 18 sitesmore » (head, breast, lung, pelvis, etc.) were evaluated in comparison in dose between the TPS and the Indp. Results: A retrospective analysis of 6352 treatment fields was conducted. The CLs for conventional, SRS and SBRT were 1.0±3.7 %, 2.0±2.5 % and 6.2±4.4 %, respectively. In conventional plans, most of the sites showed within 5 % of TG-114 action level. However, there were the systematic difference (4.0±4.0 % and 2.5±5.8 % for breast and lung, respectively). In SRS plans, our results showed good agreement compared to the action level. In SBRT plans, the discrepancy between the Indp was variable depending on dose calculation algorithms of TPS. Conclusion: The impact of dose calculation algorithms for the TPS and the Indp affects the action level. It is effective to set the site-specific tolerances, especially for the site where inhomogeneous correction can affect dose distribution strongly.« less
  • Purpose: The accuracy of dose distribution depends on treatment planning system especially in heterogeneity-region. The tolerance level (TL) of the secondary check using the independent dose verification may be variable in lung SBRT plans. We conducted a multi-institutional study to evaluate the tolerance level of lung SBRT plans shown in the AAPM TG114. Methods: Five institutes in Japan participated in this study. All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson-based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Pencilmore » Beam Convolution with modified Batho-method (PBC-B) and Adaptive Convolve (AC) were used for lung SBRT planning. A measurement using an ion-chamber was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses from the three different algorithms and the SMU to the measured dose. In addition to it, a retrospective analysis using clinical lung SBRT plans (547 beams from 77 patients) was conducted to evaluate the confidence limit (CL, Average±2SD) in dose between the three algorithms and the SMU. Results: Compared to the measurement, the AAA showed the larger systematic dose error of 2.9±3.2% than PBC-B and AC. The Clarkson-based SMU showed larger error of 5.8±3.8%. The CLs for clinical plans were 7.7±6.0 % (AAA), 5.3±3.3 % (AC), 5.7±3.4 % (PBC -B), respectively. Conclusion: The TLs from the CLs were evaluated. A Clarkson-based system shows a large systematic variation because of inhomogeneous correction. The AAA showed a significant variation. Thus, we must consider the difference of inhomogeneous correction as well as the dependence of dose calculation engine.« less
  • Purpose: In general, beam data of individual linac is measured for independent dose verification software program and the verification is performed as a secondary check. In this study, independent dose verification using golden beam data was compared to that using individual linac’s beam data. Methods: Six institutions were participated and three different beam data were prepared. The one was individual measured data (Original Beam Data, OBD) .The others were generated by all measurements from same linac model (Model-GBD) and all linac models (All-GBD). The three different beam data were registered to the independent verification software program for each institute. Subsequently,more » patient’s plans in eight sites (brain, head and neck, lung, esophagus, breast, abdomen, pelvis and bone) were analyzed using the verification program to compare doses calculated using the three different beam data. Results: 1116 plans were collected from six institutes. Compared to using the OBD, the results shows the variation using the Model-GBD based calculation and the All-GBD was 0.0 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.6%, respectively. The maximum variations were 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The plans with the variation over 1% shows the reference points were located away from the central axis with/without physical wedge. Conclusion: The confidence limit (2SD) using the Model-GBD and the All-GBD was within 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the use of golden beam data may be feasible for independent verification. In addition to it, the verification using golden beam data provide quality assurance of planning from the view of audit. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(AMED)« less
  • Purpose: To assess the feasibility of the independent dose verification (Indp) for intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT). Methods: An independent dose calculation software program (Simple MU Analysis, Triangle Products, JP) was used in this study, which can compute the radiological path length from the surface to the reference point for each control point using patient’s CT image dataset and the MLC aperture shape was simultaneously modeled in reference to the information of MLC from DICOM-RT plan. Dose calculation was performed using a modified Clarkson method considering MLC transmission and dosimetric leaf gap. In this study, a retrospective analysis was conductedmore » in which IMAT plans from 120 patients of the two sites (prostate / head and neck) from four institutes were retrospectively analyzed to compare the Indp to the TPS using patient CT images. In addition, an ion-chamber measurement was performed to verify the accuracy of the TPS and the Indp in water-equivalent phantom. Results: The agreements between the Indp and the TPS (mean±1SD) were −0.8±2.4% and −1.3±3.8% for the regions of prostate and head and neck, respectively. The measurement comparison showed similar results (−0.8±1.6% and 0.1±4.6% for prostate and head and neck). The variation was larger in the head and neck because the number of the segments was increased that the reference point was under the MLC and the modified Clarkson method cannot consider the smooth falloff of the leaf penumbra. Conclusion: The independent verification program would be practical and effective for secondary check for IMAT with the sufficient accuracy in the measurement and CT-based calculation. The accuracy would be improved if considering the falloff of the leaf penumbra.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the effect of the trajectory files from linear accelerator for Clarkson-based independent dose verification in IMRT and VMAT plans. Methods: A CT-based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) with a Clarksonbased algorithm was modified to calculate dose using the trajectory log files. Eclipse with the three techniques of step and shoot (SS), sliding window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) was used as treatment planning system (TPS). In this study, clinically approved IMRT and VMAT plans for prostate and head and neck (HN) at two institutions were retrospectively analyzed to assess the dosemore » deviation between DICOM-RT plan (PL) and trajectory log file (TJ). An additional analysis was performed to evaluate MLC error detection capability of SMU when the trajectory log files was modified by adding systematic errors (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mm) and random errors (5, 10, 30 mm) to actual MLC position. Results: The dose deviations for prostate and HN in the two sites were 0.0% and 0.0% in SS, 0.1±0.0%, 0.1±0.1% in SW and 0.6±0.5%, 0.7±0.9% in RA, respectively. The MLC error detection capability shows the plans for HN IMRT were the most sensitive and 0.2 mm of systematic error affected 0.7% dose deviation on average. Effect of the MLC random error did not affect dose error. Conclusion: The use of trajectory log files including actual information of MLC location, gantry angle, etc should be more effective for an independent verification. The tolerance level for the secondary check using the trajectory file may be similar to that of the verification using DICOM-RT plan file. From the view of the resolution of MLC positional error detection, the secondary check could detect the MLC position error corresponding to the treatment sites and techniques. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)« less