Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2018


Jalil ur Rehman
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering & Management Sciences, Quetta, Pakistan Department of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Muhammad Isa
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Hafiz Hayat Campus University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan
Nisar Ahmad
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering & Management Sciences, Quetta, Pakistan
H. M. Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering & Management Sciences, Quetta, Pakistan
Zaheer A. Gilani
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering & Management Sciences, Quetta, Pakistan
James C. L. Chow
Affiliation:
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Muhammad Afzal
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Geoffrey S. Ibbott
Affiliation:
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Background

Accurate three-dimensional dosimetry is essential in modern radiotherapy techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this research work, the PRESAGE® dosimeter was used as quality assurance (QA) tool for VMAT planning for head and neck (H&N) cancer.

Material and method

Computer tomography (CT) scans of an Image Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) H&N anthropomorphic phantom with both IROC standard insert and PRESAGE® insert were acquired separately. Both CT scans were imported into the Pinnacle (9.4 version) TPS for treatment planning, where the structures [planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk) and thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) were manually contoured and used to optimise a VMAT plan. Treatment planning was done using VMAT (dual arc: 182°–178°, 178°–182°). Beam profile comparisons and gamma analysis were used to quantify agreement with film, PRESAGE® measurement and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distribution.

Results

The average ratio of TLD measured to calculated doses at the four PTV locations in the H&N phantom were between 0·95 to 0·99 for all three VMAT deliveries. Dose profiles were taken along the left–right, the anterior–posterior and superior–inferior axes, and good agreement was found between the PRESAGE® and Pinnacle profile. The mean value of gamma results for three VMAT deliveries in axial and sagittal planes were found to be 94·24 and 93·16% when compared with film and Pinnacle, respectively. The average values comparing the PRESAGE® results and dose values calculated on Pinnacle were observed to be 95·29 and 94·38% in the said planes, respectively, using a 5%/3 mm gamma criteria.

Conclusion

The PRESAGE® dose measurements and calculated dose of pinnacle show reasonable agreement in both axial and sagittal planes for complex dual arc VMAT treatment plans. In general, the PRESAGE® dosimeter is found to be a feasible QA tool of VMAT plan for H&N cancer treatment.


Type
Technical Note
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. Babic, S, Battista, J, Jordan, K. Three-dimensional dose verification for intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the radiological physics centre head-and-neck phantom using optical computed tomography scans of ferrous xylenol–orange gel dosimeters. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 12811291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Sakhalkar, H, Sterling, D, Adamovics, J, Geffry, I, Mark, O. Investigation of the feasibility of relative 3D dosimetry in the Radiologic Physics Center Head and Neck IMRT phantom using Presage/optical‐CT. Med Phys 2009; 36: 33713377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Sakhalkar, H, Adamovics, J, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. A comprehensive evaluation of the PRESAGE/optical‐CT 3D dosimetry system. Med Phys 2009; 36: 7182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Doran, S J. The history and principles of chemical dosimetry for 3-D radiation fields: gels, polymers and plastics. Appl Radiat Isot 2009; 67: 393398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Brown, S, Venning, A, De Deene, Y et al. Radiological properties of the PRESAGE and PAGAT polymer dosimeters. Appl Radiat Isot 2008; 66: 19701974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Guo, P, Adamovics, J, Oldham, M. A practical three‐dimensional dosimetry system for radiation therapy. Med Phys 2006; 33: 39623972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Oldham, M, Sakhalkar, H, Guo, P, Adamovics, J. An investigation of the accuracy of an IMRT dose distribution using two‐and three‐dimensional dosimetry techniques. Med Phys 2008; 35: 20722080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Molineu, A, Followill, D S, Balter, P A et al. Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63: 577583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Geoffrey, S, David, S, Molineu, A, Jessica, R, Paola, E, Joye, E. Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: S71S75.Google Scholar
10. McJury, M, Oldham, M, Cosgrove, V et al. Radiation dosimetry using polymer gels: methods and applications. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 919929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Newton, J, Oldham, M, Li, Y, Adamovics, J, Kirsch, D G, Das, S. MO‐G‐BRB‐02: commissioning a small animal irradiator using 2D and 3D dosimetry techniques. Med Phys 2011; 38: 37343734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Sakhalkar, H, Adamovics, J, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. An investigation into the robustness of optical-CT dosimetry of a radiochromic dosimeter compatible with the RPC head-and-neck phantom. J Phys Conf Ser 2009; 164: 12059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Sakhalkar, H, Oldham, M. Fast, high‐resolution 3D dosimetry utilizing a novel optical‐CT scanner incorporating tertiary telecentric collimation. Med Phy 2008; 35: 101111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Devic, S, Seuntjens, J, Sham, E et al. Precise radiochromic film dosimetry using a flat‐bed document scanner. Med Phys 2005; 32: 22452253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Arumugam, S, Xing, A, Young, T et al. Comparison of three commercial dosimetric systems in detecting clinically significant VMAT delivery errors. Phys Med Eur J Med Phys 2016; 32: 12381244.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Yavas, G, Yavas, C, Gul, V, Acar, H, Atal, O. Dosimetric comparison of two different whole brain radiotherapy techniques in patients with brain metastases: how to decrease lens dose? Int J Radiat Res 2014; 12 (4): 311317.Google Scholar
17. Mesbahi, A, Dadgar, H. Dose calculations accuracy of TiGRT treatment planning system for small IMRT beamlets in heterogeneous lung phantom. Int J Radiat Res 2015; 13 (4): 345354.Google Scholar
18. ur Rehman, J, Tailor, R C, Isa, M, Muhammad, A, James, S, Ibbot, G. Evaluations of secondary cancer risk in spine radiotherapy using 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT: a phantom study. Med Dosim 2015; 40: 7075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Ibbott, G. QA in radiation therapy: the RPC perspective. J Phys Conf Ser. 2010; 250: 012001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Rehman, J, Iqbal, T, Tailor, R et al. Dosimetric comparison among different head and neck radiotherapy techniques using PRESAGE® dosimeter. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2015: 349358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Vieillevigne, L, Molinier, J, Brun, T, Ferrand, R. Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors. Phys Med Eur J Med Phys 2015; 31: 720725.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Oldham, M, Kim, L. Optical‐CT gel‐dosimetry II: optical artifacts and geometrical distortion. Med Phys 2004; 31: 10931104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 69 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th July 2018 - 27th November 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-8465588854-pvzfk Total loading time: 1.132 Render date: 2020-11-27T17:46:08.207Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Fri Nov 27 2020 17:12:36 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *