Evaluation of Beam-Matching Accuracy for 8 MV Photon Beam between the Same Model Linear Accelerator
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aimed to assess of beam-matching accuracy for an 8 MV beam between the same model linear accelerators( Linac) commissioned over two years. Two models were got the customer acceptance procedure(CAP) criteria. For commissioning data for beam-matched linacs, the percentage depth doses(PDDs), beam profiles, output factors, multi- leaf collimator(MLC) leaf transmission factors, and the dosimetric leaf gap(DLG) were compared. In addition, the accuracy of beam matching was verified at phantom and patient levels. At phantom level, the point doses specified in TG-53 and TG-119 were compared to evaluate the accuracy of beam modelling. At patient level, the dose volume histogram( DVH) parameters and the delivery accuracy are evaluated on volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) plan for 40 patients that included 20 lung and 20 brain cases. Ionization depth curve and dose profiles obtained in CAP showed a good level for beam matching between both Linacs. The variations in commissioning beam data, such as PDDs, beam profiles, output factors, TF, and DLG were all less than 1%. For the treatment plans of brain tumor and lung cancer, the average and maximum differences in evaluated DVH parameters for the planning target volume(PTV) and the organs at risk(OARs) were within 0.30% and 1.30%. Furthermore, all gamma passing rates for both beam-matched Linacs were higher than 98% for the 2%/2 ㎜ criteria and 99% for the 2%/3 ㎜ criteria. The overall variations in the beam data, as well as tests at phantom and patient levels remains all within the tolerance (1% difference) of clinical acceptability between beam-matched Linacs. Thus, we found an excellent dosimetric agreement to 8 MV beam characteristics for the same model Linacs.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess of beam-matching accuracy for an 8 MV beam between the same model linear accelerators( Linac) commissioned over two years. Two models were got the customer acceptance procedure(CAP) criteria. For commissioning data for beam-matched linacs, the percentage depth doses(PDDs), beam profiles, output factors, multi- leaf collimator(MLC) leaf transmission factors, and the dosimetric leaf gap(DLG) were compared. In addition, the accuracy of beam matching was verified at phantom and patient levels. At phantom level, the point doses specified in TG-53 and TG-119 were compared to evaluate the accuracy of beam modelling. At patient level, the dose volume histogram( DVH) parameters and the delivery accuracy are evaluated on volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) plan for 40 patients that included 20 lung and 20 brain cases. Ionization depth curve and dose profiles obtained in CAP showed a good level for beam matching between both Linacs. The variations in commissioning beam data, such as PDDs, beam profiles, output factors, TF, and DLG were all less than 1%. For the treatment plans of brain tumor and lung cancer, the average and maximum differences in evaluated DVH parameters for the planning target volume(PTV) and the organs at risk(OARs) were within 0.30% and 1.30%. Furthermore, all gamma passing rates for both beam-matched Linacs were higher than 98% for the 2%/2 ㎜ criteria and 99% for the 2%/3 ㎜ criteria. The overall variations in the beam data, as well as tests at phantom and patient levels remains all within the tolerance (1% difference) of clinical acceptability between beam-matched Linacs. Thus, we found an excellent dosimetric agreement to 8 MV beam characteristics for the same model Linacs.
참고문헌 (17)
- Hrbacek J, "Quantitative evaluation of a beam-mathcing procedure using one-dimensional gamma analysis", Med Phys, 34, pp.2917~2927 (2007)
- Beyer GP, "Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators", J Appl Clin Med Phys, 14, pp.273~288 (2013)
- Glide-Hurst C, "Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: a multi-institutional study", Med Phys, 40(3) (2013)
- SjSstrSm D, "A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators", Acta Oncol, 48, pp.192~200 (2009)
- 강성희, "Possibility of Interchanging Patients for Beam-Matched Linear Accelerators from the Same Vendor", Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 75(8), pp.628~635 (2019), 한국물리학회[DOI]
- Fraass B, "American Association of Physicist in medicine radiation therapy committee task group 53 : quality assurance for clinical treatment planning", Med Phys, 25, pp.1773~1829 (1998)
- Ezzell GA, "IMRT commissioning : multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparison", Med Phys, 36, pp.5359~5383 (2009)
- Nithya L, "Analyzing the performance of the planning system by u se o f AAPM T G119 t est cases", Radiol Phys Technol, 9, pp.22~29 (2016)
- 김연래, "Comparison of the Performance between Portal Dosimetry and a Commercial Two-dimensional Array System on Pretreatment Quality Assurance for Volumetric-modulated Arc and Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy", Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 64(8), pp.1202~1206 (2014), 한국물리학회
- Ashokkumar S, "Dosimetric validation of volumetric modulated arc therapy with three 6 MV beam-matched linear accelerators", Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 18, pp.3439~3444 (2017)
- Xu Z, "Assessment of beammatched Linacs quality", accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning, 2019, pp.20(1), 68~75
- Watts RJ, "Comparative measurements on a series of accelerators by the same vendor", Med Phys, 26, pp.2581~2585 (1999)
- Attalla EM, "Dosimetric evaluation of a beam matching procedure", Chinese-German J Clin Oncol, 13, pp.89~93 (2014)
- Bhangle JR, "Dosimetric analysis of beam-matching procedure of two similar linear accelerators", J Med Phys, 36, pp.176~180 (2011)
- Krishnappan C, "Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six Linacs from the same vendor", Radiol Phys Technol, 11, pp.423~433 (2018)
- 백태성, "Feasibility Study of Patient Specific Quality Assurance Using Transit Dosimetry Based on Measurement with an Electronic Portal Imaging Device", 의학물리, 28(2), pp.54~60 (2017), 한국의학물리학회[DOI]
- 손순룡, "Evaluation of Image Quality for Various Electronic Portal Imaging Devices in Radiation Therapy", 방사선기술과학, 38(4), pp.451~461 (2015), 대한방사선과학회[DOI]