Browsing by Subject "IMRT"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose verification using fluence and portal imaging device
    (2016) Sumida, Iori; Yamaguchi, Hajime; Das, Indra J.; Kizaki, Hisao; Aboshi, Keiko; Tsujii, Mari; Yamada, Yuji; Suzuki, Osamu; Seo, Yuji; Isohashi, Fumiaki; Ogawa, Kazuhiko; Department of Radiation Oncology, IU School of Medicine
    Patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification is essential. The aim of this study is to provide a new method based on the relative error distribution by comparing the fluence map from the treatment planning system (TPS) and the incident fluence deconvolved from the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. This method is validated for 10 head and neck IMRT cases. The fluence map of each beam was exported from the TPS and EPID images of the treatment beams were acquired. Measured EPID images were deconvolved to the incident fluence with proper corrections. The relative error distribution between the TPS fluence map and the incident fluence from the EPID was created. This was also created for a 2D diode array detector. The absolute point dose was measured with an ionization chamber, and the dose distribution was measured by a radiochromic film. In three cases, MLC leaf positions were intentionally changed to create the dose error as much as 5% against the planned dose and our fluence-based method was tested using gamma index. Absolute errors between the predicted dose of 2D diode detector and of our method and measure­ments were 1.26% ± 0.65% and 0.78% ± 0.81% respectively. The gamma passing rate (3% global / 3 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector (p< 0.02), and lower than that of the EPID (p < 0.04). The gamma passing rate (2% global / 2 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector, while the gamma passing rate of the TPS was lower than that of EPID (p < 0.02). For three modified plans, the predicted dose errors against the measured dose were 1.10%, 2.14%, and -0.87%. The predicted dose distributions from the EPID were well matched to the measurements. Our fluence-based method provides very accurate dosimetry for IMRT patients. The method is simple and can be adapted to any clinic for complex cases.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Variability of Low-Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi-Institutional Collaborative Study
    (MDPI, 2023-01-23) Yadav, Poonam; DesRosiers, Colleen M.; Mitra, Raj K.; Srivastava, Shiv P.; Das, Indra J.; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    Dose-calculation algorithms are critical for radiation treatment outcomes that vary among treatment planning systems (TPS). Modern algorithms use sophisticated radiation transport calculation with detailed three-dimensional beam modeling to provide accurate doses, especially in heterogeneous medium and small fields used in IMRT/SBRT. While the dosimetric accuracy in heterogeneous mediums (lung) is qualitatively known, the accuracy is unknown. The aim of this work is to analyze the calculated dose in lung patients and compare the validity of dose-calculation algorithms by measurements in a low-Z phantom for two main classes of algorithms: type A (pencil beam) and type B (collapse cone). The CT scans with volumes (target and organs at risk, OARs) of a lung patient and a phantom build to replicate the human lung data were sent to nine institutions for planning. Doses at different depths and field sizes were measured in the phantom with and without inhomogeneity correction across multiple institutions to understand the impact of clinically used dose algorithms. Wide dosimetric variations were observed in target and OAR coverage in patient plans. The correction factor for collapsed cone algorithms was less than pencil beam algorithms in the small fields used in SBRT. The pencil beam showed ≈70% variations between measured and calculated correction factors for various field sizes and depths. For large field sizes the trends of both types of algorithms were similar. The differences in measured versus calculated dose for type-B algorithms were within ±10%. Significant variations in the target and OARs were observed among various TPS. The results suggest that the pencil beam algorithm does not provide an accurate dose and should not be considered with small fields (IMRT/SBRT). Type-B collapsed-cone algorithms provide better agreement with measurements, but still vary among various systems.