No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Electronic Portal Imaging Device in Pre-Treatment Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2022
Abstract
Background:
Radiotherapy treatment delivery is evaluated by a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) procedure to ensure the patient receives an accurate radiation dose. The current PSQA practice by using conventional phantoms requires more set-up time and cost of purchasing the tools. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficiency of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of linear accelerator (LINAC) as a PSQA tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment delivery.
Methods:
A NPC VMAT plan on a Rando phantom was performed by following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0615 protocol. The gamma passing rate of the EPID and PSQA phantom (ArcCHECK) were compared among the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, respectively.
Results:
Both EPID and ArcCHECK phantom had distinguishable gamma passing rates in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a difference of 0·87% and 0·30%, respectively. Meanwhile, the EPID system had a lower gamma passing rate than the ArcCHECK phantom in 1%/1 mm (21·23% difference). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the EPID system was evaluated and had the largest deviation in gamma passing rate from the reference position in gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm (41·14%) compared to the 3%/3 mm (25·45%) and 1%/1 mm (31·78%), discretely. The best fit line of the linear regression model for EPID was steeper than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, and vice versa in gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. This indicates that the EPID had a higher sensitivity than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm but less sensitivity in 1%/1 mm.
Conclusions:
The EPID system was efficient in performing the PSQA test of VMAT treatment in HUSM with the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Zhu, Q Y, Zhao, G-X, Li, Y et al. Advances in pathogenesis and precision medicine for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. MedComm 2021; 2: 175–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perri, F, Scarpati, G D V, Caponigro, F et al. Management of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: current perspectives. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12: 1583–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Q, Ou, L, Peng, Y et al. Evaluation of automatic VMAT plans in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiyagarajan, R, Nambiraj, A, Sinha, S N et al. Analyzing the performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for VMAT plan. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21: 50–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, L, Skourou, C. Sensitivity of volumetric modulated arc therapy patient specific QA results to multileaf collimator errors and correlation to dose volume histogram based metrics. Med Phys 2013; 40: 111715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J, Wang, L E, Zhang, X et al. Machine learning for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT: prediction and classification accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2019; 105: 893–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussein, M, Clark, C H, Nisbet, A. Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy – towards good practice. Phys Med 2017; 36: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, B, Pradhan, A, Ganesh, T. Derivative based sensitivity analysis of gamma index. J Med Phys 2015; 40: 240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, J, Park, S Y, Kim, H J et al. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paudel, N R, Narayanasamy, G, Han, E Y et al. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison for quality assurance of IMRT and VMAT plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miften, M, Olch, A, Mihailidis, D et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys 2018; 45: e53–e83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agnew, C E, Irvine, D M, McGarry, C K. Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15: 204–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilemann, G, Poppe, B, Laub, W. On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys 2013; 40: 031702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 2015; 31: 720–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maraghechi, B, Davis, J, Mitchell, N et al. The sensitivity of gamma index analysis to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors using Varian TrueBeam EPID and ArcCHECK for patient-specific prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17: 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templeton, A K, Chu, J C H, Turian, J V. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 32–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussein, M, Rowshanfarzad, P, Ebert, M A, Nisbet, A, Clark, C H. A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems. Radiother Oncol 2013; 109: 370–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, G, Bai, S, Chen, N et al. Evaluation of the sensitivity of two 3D diode array dosimetry systems to setup error for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, B, Liu, B, Zhou, F, Yin, F, Wu, Q. Comparisons of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) systems: sensitivity analysis to machine errors. Radiat Oncol 2016; 11: 146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed