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

Title: SU-F-T-310: Does a Head-Mounted Ionization Chamber Detect IMRT Errors?

Abstract

Purpose: The conventional plan verification strategy is delivering a plan to a QA-phantom before the first treatment. Monitoring each fraction of the patient treatment in real-time would improve patient safety. We evaluated how well a new detector, the IQM (iRT Systems, Germany), is capable of detecting errors we induced into IMRT plans of three different treatment regions. Results were compared to an established phantom. Methods: Clinical plans of a brain, prostate and head-and-neck patient were modified in the Pinnacle planning system, such that they resulted in either several percent lower prescribed doses to the target volume or several percent higher doses to relevant organs at risk. Unaltered plans were measured on three days, modified plans once, each with the IQM at an Elekta Synergy with an Agility MLC. All plans were also measured with the ArcCHECK with the cavity plug and a PTW semiflex 31010 ionization chamber inserted. Measurements were evaluated with SNC patient software. Results: Repeated IQM measurements of the original plans were reproducible, such that a 1% deviation from the mean as warning and 3% as action level as suggested by the manufacturer seemed reasonable. The IQM detected most of the simulated errors including wrong energy, a faultymore » leaf, wrong trial exported and a 2 mm shift of one leaf bank. Detection limits were reached for two plans - a 2 mm field position error and a leaf bank offset combined with an MU change. ArcCHECK evaluation according to our current standards also left undetected errors. Ionization chamber evaluation alone would leave most errors undetected. Conclusion: The IQM detected most errors and performed as well as currently established phantoms with the advantage that it can be used throughout the whole treatment. Drawback is that it does not indicate the source of the error.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg (Germany)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648917
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; COMPUTER CODES; ERRORS; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Wegener, S, Herzog, B, and Sauer, O. SU-F-T-310: Does a Head-Mounted Ionization Chamber Detect IMRT Errors?. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956495.
Wegener, S, Herzog, B, & Sauer, O. SU-F-T-310: Does a Head-Mounted Ionization Chamber Detect IMRT Errors?. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956495.
Wegener, S, Herzog, B, and Sauer, O. Wed . "SU-F-T-310: Does a Head-Mounted Ionization Chamber Detect IMRT Errors?". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956495.
@article{osti_22648917,
title = {SU-F-T-310: Does a Head-Mounted Ionization Chamber Detect IMRT Errors?},
author = {Wegener, S and Herzog, B and Sauer, O},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The conventional plan verification strategy is delivering a plan to a QA-phantom before the first treatment. Monitoring each fraction of the patient treatment in real-time would improve patient safety. We evaluated how well a new detector, the IQM (iRT Systems, Germany), is capable of detecting errors we induced into IMRT plans of three different treatment regions. Results were compared to an established phantom. Methods: Clinical plans of a brain, prostate and head-and-neck patient were modified in the Pinnacle planning system, such that they resulted in either several percent lower prescribed doses to the target volume or several percent higher doses to relevant organs at risk. Unaltered plans were measured on three days, modified plans once, each with the IQM at an Elekta Synergy with an Agility MLC. All plans were also measured with the ArcCHECK with the cavity plug and a PTW semiflex 31010 ionization chamber inserted. Measurements were evaluated with SNC patient software. Results: Repeated IQM measurements of the original plans were reproducible, such that a 1% deviation from the mean as warning and 3% as action level as suggested by the manufacturer seemed reasonable. The IQM detected most of the simulated errors including wrong energy, a faulty leaf, wrong trial exported and a 2 mm shift of one leaf bank. Detection limits were reached for two plans - a 2 mm field position error and a leaf bank offset combined with an MU change. ArcCHECK evaluation according to our current standards also left undetected errors. Ionization chamber evaluation alone would leave most errors undetected. Conclusion: The IQM detected most errors and performed as well as currently established phantoms with the advantage that it can be used throughout the whole treatment. Drawback is that it does not indicate the source of the error.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956495},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}