Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Purpose: To verify the dose distribution and number of monitor units (MU) for dynamic treatment techniques like volumetric modulated single arc radiation therapy - Rapid Arc - each patient treatment plan has to be verified prior to the first treatment. The purpose of this study was to develop a patient related treatment plan verification protocol using a two dimensional ionization chamber array (MatriXX, IBA, Schwarzenbruck, Germany). Method: Measurements were done to determine the dependence between response of 2D ionization chamber array, beam direction, and field size. Also the reproducibility of the measurements was checked. For the patient related verifications the original patient Rapid Arc treatment plan was projected on CT dataset of the MatriXX and the dose distribution was calculated. After irradiation of the Rapid Arc verification plans measured and calculated 2D dose distributions were compared using the gamma evaluation method implemented in the measuring software OmniPro (version 1.5, IBA, Schwarzenbruck, Germany). Results: The dependence between response of 2D ionization chamber array, field size and beam direction has shown a passing rate of 99% for field sizes between 7 cm × 7 cm and 24 cm × 24 cm for measurements of single arc. For smaller and larger field sizes than 7 cm × 7 cm and 24 cm × 24 cm the passing rate was less than 99%. The reproducibility was within a passing rate of 99% and 100%. The accuracy of the whole process including the uncertainty of the measuring system, treatment planning system, linear accelerator and isocentric laser system in the treatment room was acceptable for treatment plan verification using gamma criteria of 3% and 3 mm, 2D global gamma index. Conclusion: It was possible to verify the 2D dose distribution and MU of Rapid Arc treatment plans using the MatriXX. The use of the MatriXX for Rapid Arc treatment plan verification in clinical routine is reasonable. The passing rate should be 99% than the verification protocol is able to detect clinically significant errors. Introduction dose distributions: speed of rotation, beam shaping aper- Rapid Arc radiotherapy technology from Varian Medical ture and delivery dose rate . The variation of three Systems is one of the most complex delivery systems cur- dynamic parameters is used to cover the planning target volume with clinical acceptable dose and to spare the rently available, and achieves an entire intensity- modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment in a organs at risk (OAR) and normal tissue. Due to the volu- single gantry rotation around the patient. Three dynamic metric single arc the treatment can be performed in less parameters can be continuously varied to create IMRT time than IMRT treatment. Some studies compared the dose to OAR, healthy tissue sparing, and target coverage of Rapid Arc to conventional forwardly planed radiother- * Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org apy technique, fixed field IMRT, Helical Tomotherapy, † Contributed equally and Intensity Modulated Proton therapy [2-17]. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Goettingen, Germany © 2011 Wagner and Vorwerk; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 2 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 Presupposition for clinically significant advances in the reproducibility was checked for field size of 10 cm × management of cancer is the correct calculation of the 10 cm. Therefore the measurement was compared with dose distribution and the correct treatment delivery. repeated measurements with the same setup using the Gagne at al. have shown that the calculation of the dose gamma evaluation method with the criteria 3% und distribution can be performed with a clinical acceptable 2 mm, no threshold, 2D global gamma index . The accuracy using the algorithm AAA (anisotropic analyti- measurement was repeated ten times. The measurements cal algorithm [18,19]) with a resolution of 2.5 mm or took place at the Clinac 2300 C/D (Varian Medical Sys- better . Ling et al. have shown that the DMLC tem, Palo Alto, CA, USA). For all measurements a photon energy of 6 MV movement, variable dose-rates and gantry speeds can be was used. 500 MU were photons precisely controlled during Rapid Arc . applied for all measurements. The MatriXX was used in In opposite to 3D conventional treatment techniques the acquisition mode “Movie Mode”. The sampling time in dynamic treatment techniques the verification of the was set to 200 ms, the maximum number of sample to 5, MU is much more complex. Therefore the dose distri- and the number of movie images to 2000. The measured bution is verified using 2D or 3D measuring devices like matrix was interpolated linear to 1 mm and was scaled 2D ionization chamber arrays or phantoms equipped relative to maximum. All measurements were normalized with radiographic films. In the past some investigations to maximum dose. For the treatment the verification were done to ascertain the potential of different types of plan has to be prepared within the record and verify sys- 2D ionization chambers for IMRT verification measure- tem. The manufacturer declared a warm up time of 15 min ments [22-36]. and pre-irradiation with 10 Gy before measurement. The purpose of this study was to analyze the potential of the MatriXX for patient related verification of Rapid Patient treatment plans Arc treatment plans. Therefore some preparing mea- Different patient treatment plans were used, 53 treat- surements were done. We determined the dependence ment plans of the head region, 68 treatment plans of between response of the MatriXX, beam direction, and the head and neck region, and 312 treatment plans of field size. Also we repeated 2D dose distribution mea- the pelvis region. A total of 433 different treatment surements ten times and compared each measurement plans in complexity with 598 arcs were measured and with the first one to check the reproducibility of the analyzed. For treatment of gliomas a total dose (TD) of method. 60 Gy with asingle dose(SD)of 2.0 Gy was used. The other treatments in the head regions were applied with Materials and methods aTDof30Gy(SD 2.75 Gy)tothe whole brain witha Two dimensional ionization chamber array concomitantboost with aTDof45Gy(SD 3.75 Gy). The two dimensional ionization chamber array consists Additional the boost plans of cerebral metastases with a of a 32 × 32 matrix of 1024 parallel plate ionization TD of 9 Gy or 15 Gy (SD 2.5 Gy or 3.0 Gy, respectively) chambers. The ionization chambers are arranged in a are analysed. Head and neck cancer patients were trea- square of 24 cm × 24 cm as active measuring area. Each ted using an integrated protocol with a TD 54 Gy (SD chamber has 0.4 cm diameter and 0.55 cm height. The 1.8 Gy) to lymph node regions, which were possible distance between each ionization chamber is 0.75 cm involved, and a TD 57.6 Gy (SD 1.92 Gy) to lymph from centre to centre of adjacent chambers. The sensi- node regions, which are involved with a high possibility. tive volume of each single ionization chamber is The region of the primary tumour was treated with a 0.07 cm . Each of the 1024 independent ionization cham- TD of 66 Gy (SD 2.2 Gy) for treatment with a curative bers is read out with a custom microelectronics chip. intent and with a TD of 62.4 Gy (SD 2.08 Gy) for adju- vant intent. In the pelvis region patient with rectal can- Preparing measurements cer (neo adjuvant treatment with TD 50.4 Gy, SD To analyse the potential of the MatriXX for verification 1.8 Gy), cervical cancer (adjuvant treatment with TD of Rapid Arc treatment plans two measurement series 50.4 Gy, SD 1.8 Gy) and prostate cancer were analysed. were accomplished. First the dependence of MatriXX The TD for patient with prostate cancer differed response of beam direction and field size were analysed. between 60Gyto72Gy(SD 2.0Gy).Some patient Therefore the MatriXX was irradiated with unblocked received additional and concomitant treatment of the photon arc fields with field sizes of 3 cm × 3 cm, 5 cm × lymph node region with a TD of 45 Gy (SD 1.8 Gy). For 5cm, 10 cm ×10cm, 20 cm ×20 cm, 24 cm ×24cm, all treatment plans photon energy of 6 MV with Photons and30cm×30 cm.The unblockedphotonarc fields the dose rate of 600 MU/min (800 MU/min for field were irradiated using a full rotation of the gantry around size smaller than 15 cm × 15 cm and energy mode 6 the MatriXX (start angle 181°, stop angle 179°, counter MV s SRS) were used. The treatment plans were photon clockwise, Varian scale IEC 601). Second the optimized for single or double arc delivery (s. table 1 for Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 3 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 Table 1 Results region number of monitor units Treatment time [sec] passing rate PTV [ml] field size cm head 341 ± 221 0.99 ± 0.12 99.88 ± 0.19 388.2 ± 539.6 14.7 ± 5.5 head and neck 191 ± 102 0.85 ± 0.01 99.80 ± 0.39 477.8 ± 429.8 20.1 ± 4.8 prostate 300 ± 123 1.00 ± 0.06 99.54 ± 0.21 717.2 ± 617.5 15.6 ± 4.9 abdomen 231 ± 28 0.92 ± 0.05 99.76 ± 0.32 1032.6 ± 500.8 20.7 ± 2.3 range head 118 - 1717 0.78 - 1.09 99.11 - 100.00 7.9 - 1895.0 7.0 - 24.0 head and neck 118 - 693 0.84 - 0.85 97.04 - 100.00 22.3 - 1916.3 7.0 - 24.0 prostate 129 - 906 0.91 - 1.08 98.84 - 100.00 37.6 - 3559.8 7.2 - 24.0 abdomen 195 - 274 0.89 - 0.96 99.15 - 100.00 894.5 - 2140.6 19.0 - 24.0 The columns show (left to right) the region of the localization of the PTV, the mean MU used for the treatment and its standard deviation, the mean treatment time per arc and its standard deviation, the mean passing rate and its standard deviation, the mean volume of the PTV and its standard deviation, and the mean field size by jaws and its standard deviation. The first three rows give the mean results for the different regions. The last three rows show the range of each region. average field size and for average MU). For single arc software OmniPro. The measured dose distribution was delivery the gantry rotated clockwise around the patient, generated during single or double rotation of the gantry for double arc delivery first clockwise and second coun- around the MatriXX. The acquisition mode, scaling ter clockwise. The start angle for single arc in clockwise mode, sampling time, number of samples, number of direction ranged between 181° and 270°, and the stop movie images and interpolation algorithm was set as angle between 90° and 179°. The start angle for the sec- described above. The analysis was made using gamma ond arc in counter clockwise direction ranged between evaluation method  to compare measured and calcu- 90° and 179°, and the stop angle for the second arc in lated dose distribution. The gamma evaluation criteria counter clockwise direction between 181° and 270°. For were 3% and 3 mm,nothreshold, 2Dglobalgamma each treatment plan 177 control points were set. The index. For the analysis of the gamma evaluation result dose distribution for all plans were calculated with the histogram of the gamma evaluation was displayed. Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) from Varian The histogram of the gamma evaluation plotted the Medical Systems, version 8.5; using AAA algorithm with number of pixel against the gamma value. The total a grid size of 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm. The AAA is a number of pixel with a gamma value above 1 was 3D pencil Beam convolution/superposition algorithm divided by the total number of pixel within the region that uses separate Monte Carlo derived modelling for of interest (ROI). The ROI was set to field size +1 cm. primary photons, scattered extra-focal photons, and electrons scattered from the beam limiting devices Results [18,19]. The treatment couch structures (exact couch, Preparing measurements Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) were con- The MatriXX response agrees within 99% of pixel with sidered during the calculation process. gamma evaluation value beneath 1 for field sizes between 7 cm × 7 cm and 24 cm × 24 cm for measure- Verification treatment plans ments of single arc. For smaller and larger field sizes The patient Rapid Arc treatment plan was projected on then 7 cm × 7 cm and 24 cm × 24 cm the response was the CT scan of the MatriXX including 4 cm polymethyl- less than 99% of the pixel with gamma evaluation value methacrylate (PMMA) above and underneath the active beneath 1. The passing rate was 93.8% for field size measuring area to account for build up and backscatter. 3 cm × 3 cm, 98.3% for field size 5 cm × 5 cm, and The isocenter was positioned at the centre of the active 82.2% for field size 30 cm × 30 cm, respectively. The measuring area. For calculation of the dose distribution reproducibility was within a passing rate of 99% and the TPS Eclipse using the AAA algorithm, version 8.5 100% (range 99.4% and 100.0%). with a grid size of 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm was used. The treatment couch structures were considered during Verification treatment plans the calculation process. The mean treatment time was 1.05 min for all patients, ranging from 0.78 min to 1.56 min. We do not use full Analysis rotation of the gantry around the patient for all treat- The 2D dose distribution in the active measuring area in ments. If possible we spared the treatment couch and the frontal CT slice of the verification plan was exported OAR, which have low dose tolerance like lenses. The with the resolution of 1 mm and imported into the system tried to move the gantry with maximum speed if Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 4 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 the leafs of the multi leaf collimator (MLC) could move � MatriXX measurement method into the given position that fast and the MU could be � Monitor output fluctuation of treatment machine deliveredthatfast. If thedose ratereached themaxi- � Dose calculation of the treatment planning system mum of 600 MU/min (800 MU/min for field sizes smal- � Specifications of treatment machine ler than 15 cm × 15 cm and energy mode 6 MV In our study, the uncertainty components for MatriXX photons SRS) the gantry speed was reduced. measurement method had to be taken into account due After measurement, both - measured and calculated to positioning of MatriXX using the isocentric laser sys- dose distribution - were compared using gamma evalua- tem in treatment room, the broadening of the penumbra tion method implemented in the software OmniPro. due to the volume effect of the ionization chambers Using the histogram the distribution of the gamma eva- which act as low pass filter, and an additional compo- luation was displayed. The results of the ratio of the nent for response of ionization chamber reading. In number of pixel beneath the gamma evaluation value of addition, the daily monitor output fluctuation of the 1 divided by the total number of pixel within the ROI is treatment machine varies up to 0.75% (daily measure- shown in table 1. ments with ionization chamber). The manufacturer of The passing rate was between 99.0% and 100.0% in the treatment machine specifies dose stability during 431 of 433 cases. In two cases - one head and neck and gantry rotation to 2%; accuracy of gantry, collimator, oneprostatecase-thepassing rate was97.7% and and couch rotation to 0.75 mm; and accuracy of MLC 98.8%, respectively. In 53 head cases the mean passing positioning to 1 mm. For the accuracy of the dose cal- rate was 99.88% ± 0.19% with PTV volume sizes ranging culation, the manufacturer specifies 1.0% for unblocked between 7.9 ml and 1895.0 ml and the resulting square photon fields. The uncertainty of the treatment field sizes between 7.0 cm and 24.0 cm. The mean pas- machine’s basic data measurements had to be taken into sing rate in 68 head and neck cases was 99.80% ± 0.39% consideration within 2 mm. The consideration of 2 mm with PTV volume size ranging between 22.3 ml and contained the exact positioning of the ionization cham- 1916.3 ml and the resulting square field sizes between ber during basic data measurements for the TPS before 7.0 cm and 24.0 cm. For 312 cases in pelvis region the clinical operation. The different contributions are listed mean passing rate was 99.54% ± 0.21% with PTV in table 2. volume sizes ranging between 37.6 ml and 3559.8 ml The common used gamma evaluation criteria 3% and and the resulting square field sizes between 7.2 cm and 3mmwereassumedtobesufficientfor theevaluation 24.0 cm. of the measured and calculated 2D dose distribution in To check if the verification protocol is able to detect the active measurement area of the MatriXX. clinically significant errors the original patient Rapid Arc treatment plan was manipulated. Therefore the Discussion MLC position (Millennium 120 Multi leaf collimator, We investigated this study to generate a patient related Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was chan- verification procedure for Rapid Arc treatment plans. ged and the dose distribution was calculated with the Before we started to generate the verification protocol changed MLC position. To change the MLC position we investigated measurements to analyse the potential single leafs has to be set to another position at all 177 of the MatriXX for unblocked photon arc fields. The control points using the MLC movement tool of the MatriXX response showed good agreements between TPS. The 2D dose distribution was measured and com- calculated and measured dose distribution for field sizes pared with the original, unchanged 2D dose distribution. of 7 cm× 7cmand 24 cm × 24 cm witha passing rate If the MLC position was changed in a way that the dose between 99% and 100%. Higher aberrations were found distribution was changed clinically significant and there- for smaller field sizes than 7 cm × 7 cm and for larger fore the probability of toxicity was increased the passing field sizes than 24 cm × 24 cm. During Rapid Arc verifi- rate was less than 99% with the settings of the MatriXX cation measurement we measured the whole dose distri- mentioned above (s. figure 1). Clinically significant bution which consists of 177 control points (177 beam means increasing the dose to the OAR higher than the directions with different MLC shapes and gantry speeds given limits by Emami et al. , and decreasing the between each beam direction). 2/177 beams irradiated dose to the PTV according to ICRU-50 report. perpendicular through the MatriXX. In addition a range of control points irradiated near lateral through the Uncertainty budget MatriXX. The advantage of the MatriXX is cylindrical Since the comparison of measured and calculated 2D parallel plate chambers. Our results showed good agree- dose distribution was considered as the end result, the ment between measured and calculated dose distribu- following sources contributing to the overall uncertainty tion in the active measurement area. We assume that of the result were identified: the TPS considered the beam angle dependence of the Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 5 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 Figure 1 a) Example of measured 2D dose distribution of a head and neck case. The MLC positions were changed in the region of the spinal cord to got higher dose to the spinal cord which could not be clinically tolerated. b) Passing rate against the maximum dose to the spinal cord of the same head and neck case. 4 Rapid Arc treatment plans were generated by changing the MLC positions. The changed Rapid Arc treatment plans were compared to the original Rapid Arc treatment plan. The original Rapid Arc treatment plan showed a passing rate of 99.3%. The lines indicate the in our clinic tolerated limits: 45 Gy maximum dose to the spinal cord and 99% passing rate. MatriXX correctly. Correctly in this context means that the treatment couch was considered during dose distri- the angular dependence is clinically tolerable for field bution calculation. Using the TPS Eclipse V. 8.5 and sizes between 7 cm × 7 cm and 24 cm × 24 cm. above it is possible to insert Varian treatment couch In our study we projected the patient Rapid Arc treat- types to the CT dataset. The absorption of the treat- ment plan with its MLC shape, gantry speed and dose ment couch is considered by giving the system Houns- rate parameters on the CT dataset of the MatriXX field Units (HU) for each part of the treatment couch including 4 cm build up and 4 cm backscatter material like couch top and rails. The correct HU were deter- as well as the treatment couch structures. The electron mined by comparison of measured values using an ioni- density of the different parts of the MatriXX as well as zation chamber and calculated values by TPS [for more Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 6 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 Table 2 Uncertainty components for the verification Our presented method allows the quality assurance of method Rapid Arc treatment plans prior to treatment. The Uncertainty budget method was tested for quality assurance of 433 treat- Components for measurement Uncertainty ment plans with different complexity. We projected the patient treatment plan on the CT dataset of the MatriXX including the treatment couch structures and MatriXX Ionization chambers 2% calculated the dose distribution using the AAA algo- broadening of penumbra (low pass filter) 1 mm rithm. Due to our results we conclude that the angular positioning of IMRT-MatriXX 1 mm dependence may be considered correctly/clinically toler- monitur output fluctuation 0.75% able in the TPS if the CT dataset of the measurement dose stability during gantry rotation 2% device including 4 cm build up and 4 cm backscatter stability gantry, collimator, and couch rotation 0.75 mm material, the treatment couch structures, and the AAA MLC positioning 1 mm algorithmwith agrid sizeof 0.2cm×0.2cm×0.2cm are used for field sizes between 7 cm × 7 cm and Total 2.9%, 1.9 mm 24 cm × 24 cm. In different studies [for example [27,36], and ] the Components for calculation Uncertainty angular dependence of 2D ionization chamber array are determined and considered in different ways. All studies dose calculation of treatment planning system 1% showed that with their presented method the angular Basic data measurements 2 mm dependence was considered correctly to use the mea- surement device for the quality assurance of dynamic Total 1%, 2 mm treatment techniques. In our study we considered for the angular dependence by calculation of the dose distri- details s. ]. In the past several studies were published bution on the CT dataset of the MatriXX, by consider- which showed that the treatment couch attenuation is ing the treatment couch structures during the up to 3% for beam direction 180° and up to 9% for obli- calculation process, by using all beam directions of all que beam directions [40-45] and needs to be considered. 177 control points, by using 4 cm PMMA for build up According to the study of Ling et al.  quality and 4 cm PMMA for backscatter, and by using the assurance of treatment machine especially for Rapid Arc AAA algorithm with a grid size of 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm. Due to this setup the effect of angular depen- was done monthly as well as weekly measurements of dence of the MatriXX is clinically tolerable for 2D dose absolute dose of arc fields and dynamic MLC fields distribution comparison using the gamma evaluation using ionization chamber. Due to our quality assurance method with criteria 3% and 3 mm. we could be sure that the treatment machine delivered To characterize the angular sensitivity of the MatriXX complex Rapid Arc plans correctly if the 2D dose distri- we have done measurements before starting to imple- bution was within the passing rate of 99% using the pre- ment a verification protocol for patient related Rapid sented method. Arc treatment plan verifications. We have used a differ- Wolfsberger et al. presented recently their method for IMRT and Rapid Arc quality assurance . They ent way to characterize the angular dependence and showed in their study that the MatriXX response is field size dependence of the MatriXX. We combined dependent on beam directions. The dependency was 7% both end results in one test to get one combined end to 11% for perpendicular and oblique beam directions result. We felt that this method is adequate because and need to be corrected. They suggest correcting the during the Rapid Arc treatment and the measurement angular dependence using correction factors for each of the 2D dose distribution using the MatriXX the beam angle. Popple et. al. published their first experi- dependence of angular beams and dependence of field ence with patient related quality assurance of dynamic sizes are combined as well. Different studies have shown treatment techniques (IMRT and Rapid Arc) of 52 cases dependence of beam angle and treatment couch consid- . In their study they considered the angular depen- ering as single end result, but did not combine different dence of the 2D ionization chamber array as well. In end results. By combining different end results in one opposite to Wolfsberger et. al. they corrected the angu- test setup the potential of the measurement device can lar dependence using a special formed phantom (Multi- be seen easily for the setup which will be used during quality assurance measurements. cube, IBA, Schwarzenbruck) which considered for the Herzen et al. analysed the dose and energy dependence angular dependence. Van Esch et. al. considered the of the MatriXX. They showed that the detector’s response angular dependence of the 2D ionization chamber array was linear with dose and energy independent . in the same way using a special formed phantom . Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 7 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 The purpose of the development of two dimensional The passing rate should to be 99% to detect clinically detector arrays was to ease the two dimensional verifica- significant errors using the gamma criteria 3% and tions of fields with complex shapes and large gradients 3 mm, 2D global gamma index. . Since two dimensional detector arrays have been developed, these systems have been used for quality con- trol and verification of IMRT. The results of some studies Authors’ contributions All authors contributed substantially to the manuscript: DW contributed in were in good agreement with calculations performed with the conception and realisation of the study and data acquisition and the TPS and with the standard dosimetric tools, i.e., films analysis, and HV with the drafting and revising of the article. Both authors or various point dose detectors [22-24]. read and approved the final manuscript. The MatriXX has the potential for Rapid Arc treatment Competing interests plan verifications. If the MLC position was changed in a The authors declare that they have no competing interests. way that the dose distribution was changed clinically sig- Received: 15 September 2010 Accepted: 22 February 2011 nificant, the passing rate was less than 99% with gamma Published: 22 February 2011 criteria 3% and 3 mm for the presented method (s. figure 1). For a passing rate below 99% the optimization References and calculation of the patient Rapid Arc treatment plan 1. Bush K, Townson R, Zavgorodni S: Monte Carlo simulation of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53:359-370. has to be redone using other constraints for the optimi- 2. Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shirvastave SK, Mahantshetty U, Engineer R, zation process to smooth the dose gradients. Deshpande DD, Jamema SV, Vanetty E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A: A The measured and calculated doses were normalized treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother relative to dose maximum. By the normalization process Oncol 2008, 89:180-191. the deviation in the gamma evaluation method were 3. Clivio A, Fogliata A, Franzetti-Pellanda A, Nicolini G, Vanetti Em suppressed in low dose regions. It has to be taken into Wyttenbach R, Cozzi L: Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: A treatment planning comparison with account that OAR are presented in the low dose region fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009, 92:118-124. and the passing of the gamma evaluation criteria 3% 4. Vanetti , Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Ghosh-Laskar S, Aqarwal JP, Upreti RR, and 3 mm may result in larger deviation in this regions. Budrikkar A, Murthy V, Deshpande DD, Shrivastava SK, Dinshaw KA, Cozzi L: Volumetric modulated ard radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro- However in the most cases the gradients and modula- pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: A treatment planning comparison tions were not really high using the treatment protocols with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009, 92:111-117. for the presented cases as described above and Rapid 5. Fogliata A, Yartsev S, Nicolini G, Clivio A, Vanetti E, Wyttenbach R, Baumann D, Cozzi L: On the performance of Intensity Modulated Arc treatments. Therefore the normalization method Protons, RapidArc and Helical Tomotherapy for selected paediatric could be tolerated. cases. Radiother Oncol 2009, 4:2. We set the passing rate to 99% than the verification 6. Fogliata A, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Cozzi L: Intensity modulation with protocol is able to detect clinically significant errors as photons for benign intracranial tumours: a planning comparison of volumetric single arc, helical arc and fixed gantry techniques. Radiother the manipulated measurements showed. Some of the Oncol 2008, 89:254-262. irradiated ionization chambers of the MatriXX may have 7. Johansen S, Cozzi L, Olsen DR: A planning comparison of dose patterns in organs at risk and predicted risk for radiation included malignancy on significant larger deviations. This larger deviation may the contralateral breast following radiation therapy of primary breast lead to patient mistreatment. It has to be taken into using conventional, IMRT and Volumetric modulated arc treatment account that the mistreatment was true for the actual techniques. Acta Oncol 2009, 48:495-503. 8. Kjær-Kristoffersen F, Ohlhues L, Medin J, Korreman S: RapidArc volumetric fraction. However the patient was setup several times modulated therapy planning for prostate cancer patients. Acta Oncol for the treatment and the single larger deviations will be 2008, 48:227-232. spread. 9. Lagerwaard F, Meijer O, van del Hoorn E, Verbakel W, Slotman B, Senan S: Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas. For IMRT treatment plans the manufacturer has 2009. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:610-615. implemented the use of the portal imager as measuring 10. Verbakel W, Senan S, Cuijpers J, Slotman B, Lagerwaard F: Rapid delivery of device. It is quite easy to verify IMRT treatment plans stereotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumors using volumetric intensity modulated arcs. Radiother Oncol 2009, 93:122-124. with portal dosimetry because of no need to set up an 11. Verbakel W, Cuijpers J, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman B: Volumetric external measuring device. Therefore the setup error has intensity modulated arc therapy versus conventional IMRT in head and not to be taken into account using the laser system in neck cancer: A comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:252-259. the treatment room. The manufacturer is questioned to 12. Wagner D, Christiansen H, Wolff H, Vorwerk H: Radiotherapy of malignant provide the portal dosimetry system for Rapid Arc veri- gliomas: comparison of volumetric single arc technique (RapidArc), fications as well. dynamic intensitymodulated technique and 3D conformal technique. Radiother Oncol 2009, 93:593-596. 13. Yoo S, Wu J, Lee R, Yin FF: Radiotherapy treatment plans with rapidarc Conclusion for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Int J The method is easy to implement into clinical routine. Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76(3):935-42, 1. 14. Bignardi M, Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Lattuada P, Mancosu P, Navarria P, Urso G, Verifying 2D dose distribution and MU with the Vigorito S, Scorsetti M: Critical appraisal of volumetric modulated arc MatriXX for Rapid Arc treatment plans is reasonable. Wagner and Vorwerk Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:21 Page 8 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/6/1/21 therapy in stereotactic body radiation therapy for metastases to 35. Heintz B, Hammond D, Cavanaugh D, Rosencranz D: A comparison of abdominal lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:1570-1577. MatriXX, MapCHECK and film for IMRT QA: limitations of 2D electronic 15. Nicolini G, Clivio A, Fogliata A, Vanetti E, Cozzi L: Simultaneous integrated systems. Med Phys Abstract 2006, 33:2052. boost radiotherapy for bilateral breast: a treatment planning and 36. Wolfsberger LD, Wagar M, Nitsch P, Bhagwat MS, Zygmanski P: Angular dosimetric comparison for volumetric modulated arc and fixed field dose dependence of Matrixx TM and its calibration. J Appl Clin Med Phys intensity modulated therapy. Radiat Oncol 2009, 4:27. 2010, 11:3057. 16. Popescu C, Olivotto I, Beckham W, Ansbacher W, Zavdorodni S, shaffer R, 37. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA: A technique for the quantitative Wai E, Otto K: Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry evaluation of dose distribution. Med Phys 1998, 25:656-661. and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity- 38. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, Shank B, modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left sided Solin LJ, Wesson M: Tolerance of normal tissue of therapeutic irradiation. breast cancer and internal mammary nodes. Int I Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Int J Radiother Oncol Biol Phys 1991, 21:109-122. 2010, 76:287-295. 39. Wagner D, Vorwerk H: Treatment Couch Modeling in the Treatment 17. Weber D, Peguret N, Dipasquale G, Cozzi L: Involved node and involved Planning System Eclipse. J Cancer Sci Ther 2011, 3:188-193. field volumetric modulated arc vs. fixed beam intensity modulated 40. Vanetti E, Nicolini G, Clivio A, Fogliata A, Cozzi L: The impact of treatment radiotherapy for female patients with early stage supra diaphragmatic couch modelling on RapidArc. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54:157-166. Hodgkin lymphoma: a comparative planning study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 41. McCormack S, Diffey J, Morgan A: The effect of gantry angle on Phys 2009, 75:1578-1586. megavoltage photon beam attenuation by a carbon fiber couch insert. 18. Ulmer W, Harder D: A Triple Gaussian Pencil Beam Model for Photon Med Phys 2005, 32:483-487. Beam Treatment Planning. Med Phys 1995, 5:25-30. 42. Spezi E, Angelini AL, Romani F, Guido A, Bunkheila F, Ntreta M, Ferri A: 19. Ulmer W, Pyyry J, Kaissl W: A 3D photon superposition/convolution Evaluating the influence of the Siemens IGRT carbin fibre tabletop in algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations. Phys head and neck IMRT. Radiother Onkol 2008, 89:114-122. Med Biol 2005, 50:1767-90. 43. Poppe B, Chofor N, Rühmann A, Kunth W, Djouguela A, Kollhoff R, 20. Gange IM, Ansbacher W, Zavgorodni S, Popescu C, Beckham WA: A Monte Willborn KC: The effect of a carbon fiber couch on the depth-dose Carlo evaluation of RapidArc dose calculations for oropharynx curves and transmission properties for megavoltage photon beams. radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53:7167-7185. Strahlenther Onkol 2007, 183:43-48. 21. Ling CC, Zhang P, Archambault Y, Bocanek J, Tang G, Losasso T: 44. Myint WK, Niedbala M, Wilkins D, Gerig LH: Investigating treatment dose Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery error due to beam attenuation by carbon fiber tabletop. J Appl Clin Med system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 72:575-581. Phys 2006, 7:21-27. 22. Spezi E, Angelini AL, Romani F, Ferri A: Characterization of a 2D ion 45. Munjal RK, Negi PS, Babu AG, Sinha SN, Anand AK, Kataria T: Impact of 6 chamber array for the verification of radiotherapy treatments. Phys Med MV photon beam attenuation by carbon fiber couch and immobilization Biol 2005, 50:3361-3373. divices in IMRT planning and dose delivery. J Med Phys 2006, 31:67-71. 23. Wiezorek T, Banz N, Schwedas M, Scheithauer M, Salz H, Georg D, 46. Popple RA, Fiveash JB, Brezovich IA, Bonner JA: First Year Experience at Wendt TG: Dosimetric quality assurance for intensity-modulated the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Int J Radiother Oncol Biol Phys radiotherapy feasibility study for a filmless approach. Strahlenther Onkol 2010, 77:932-941. 2005, 181:468-474. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-6-21 24. Poppe B, Djouguela A, Blechschmidt A, Willborn K, Rühmann A, Harder D: Cite this article as: Wagner and Vorwerk: Two years experience with Spatial resolution of 2D ionization chamber arrays for IMRT dose quality assurance protocol for patient related Rapid Arc treatment plan verification: single-detector size and sampling step width. Phys Med Biol verification using a two dimensional ionization chamber array. Radiation 2007, 52:2921-2235. Oncology 2011 6:21. 25. Amerio S, Boriano A, Bourhaleb F, Cirio R, Donetti M, Fidanzio A, Garelli E, Giordanengo S, Madon E, Marchetto F, Nastasi U, Peroni C, Piermattei A, Sanz Freire CJ, Sardo A, Trevisiol E: Dosimetric characterization of a large area pixel-segmented ionization chamber. Med Phys 2004, 31:414-420. 26. Stasi M, Giordanengo S, Cirio R, Boriano A, Bourhaleb F, Cornelius I, Donetti M, Garelli E, Gomola I, Marchetto F, Porzio M, Sanz Freire CJ, Sardo A, Peroni C: D-IMRT verification with a 2D pixel ionization chamber: dosimetric and clinical results in head and neck cancer. Phys Med Biol 2005, 50:4681-4694. 27. Van Esch A, Clermont C, Devillers M, Iori M, Huyskens DP: On-line quality assurance of rotational radiotherapy treatment delivery by means of a 2D ion chamber array and the Octavius phantom. Med Phys 2007, 34:3825-3837. 28. Herzen J, Todorovic M, Cremers F, Platz V, Albers D, Bartels A, Schmidt R: Dosimetric evaluation of a 2D pixel ionization chamber for implementation in clinical routine. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:1197-1208. 29. Schreibmann E, Dhabaan A, Elder E, Fox T: Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys 2009, 36:4530-4535. 30. Spezi E, Angelini AL, Ferri A: A multiple acquisition sequence for IMRT Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central verification with a 2D ion chamber array. Med Dosim 2006, 31:269-272. and take full advantage of: 31. Poppe B, Blechschmidt A, Djouguela A, Kollhoff R, Rubach A, Willborn KC, Harder D: Two-dimensional ionization chamber arrays for IMRT plan • Convenient online submission verification. Med Phys 2006, 33:1005-1015. 32. Leybovich LB, Sethi A, Dogan N: Comparison of ionization chambers of • Thorough peer review various volumes for IMRT absolute dose verification. Med Phys 2003, • No space constraints or color ﬁgure charges 30:119-1123. • Immediate publication on acceptance 33. Bhardwaj A, Sharma SC, Patel FD, Ghoshal S, Oinam AS, Kapoor R, Kumar R, Goswami P: Use of I’mRT MatriXX for routine dynamic MLC QA and IMRT • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar dose verification. Med Phys Abstract 2008, 35:2761. • Research which is freely available for redistribution 34. Yu M, Nelson N, Gladstone D: Comparisons of measured doses using ion chamber and Matrixx for IMRT-QA. Med Phys Abstract 2008, 35:2744. Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Radiation Oncology – Springer Journals
Published: Feb 22, 2011
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.