scholarly journals Computational model of a 3D dosimetry system - ArcCHECK®

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2A) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Cristina Mazer ◽  
Marcos Vinicius Nakaoka Nakandakari ◽  
Victor Augusto Bertotti Ribeiro ◽  
Paulo De Tarso Dalledone Siqueira ◽  
Julian Marco Barbosa Shorto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Radiation Transport ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
3D Dosimetry ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dosimetry System

Ionizing radiation therapies have been improving over the years, becoming more specific for each patient. Thereby, as the treatment planning system (TPS) complexities increases, the quality assurance (QA) methods have to be in constant evolution. One of the techniques that demand great complexity is the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and one possible way to VMAT commissioning is using 3D dosimetry systems. Recently a new 3D dosimetry system called ArcCHECK had been developed and commercialized mainly for VMAT quality assurance. It is water-equivalent and composed by an array of 1386 diodes arranged in a helical pattern. Since simulation methods, like Monte Carlo method, ensure highly accurate results, MCNP (A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code System) is totally reliable for problems that involve radiation transport. This work presents two computational models for Monte Carlo simulations to predict detection responses in the QA procedure using the ArcCHECK. The computational models were validated comparing the system responses obtained from MCNP6 simulations against measured responses due to a 6 MeV clinical photon beam from a Linear Accelerator. 2D dose maps were reported here with good agreement between simulated and measured values.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalil ur Rehman ◽  
Muhammad Isa ◽  
Nisar Ahmad ◽  
H. M. Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar ◽  
Zaheer A. Gilani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Calculated Dose

AbstractBackgroundAccurate 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 methodComputer 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

scholarly journals Pretreatment quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy on patient CT scan using indirect 3D dosimetry system

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 020416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanmugam Thirumalai Swamy ◽  
Chandrasekaran Anuradha ◽  
Murugesan Kathirvel ◽  
Gandhi Arun ◽  
Shanmuga Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
3D Dosimetry ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dosimetry System

SU-E-T-188: Patient Specific Quality Assurance for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (RapidArc) Using COMPASS 3D Dosimetry System

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (6Part13) ◽  
pp. 3529-3529
Author(s):  
G Arun ◽  
V Shanmuga Subramanian ◽  
S Thirumalai Swamy ◽  
M Kathirvel ◽  
K Ramalingam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
3D Dosimetry ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dosimetry System

scholarly journals Improvement Using Planomics Features on Prediction and Classification of Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Using Head and Neck Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plan

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing Li ◽  
Junying Chen ◽  
Wei Guo ◽  
Ronghu Mao ◽  
Xiaoli Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Gradient Boosting ◽  
Classification Models ◽  
Hybrid Features ◽  
Arc Therapy

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a new plan feature (planomics feature) for predicting the results of patient-specific quality assurance using the head and neck (H&N) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan.Methods: One hundred and thirty-one H&N VMAT plans in our institution from 2019 to 2021 were retrospectively collected. Dosimetric verification for all plans was carried out using the portal dosimetry system integrated into the Eclipse treatment planning system based on the electronic portal imaging devices. Gamma passing rates (GPR) were analyzed using three gamma indices of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. Forty-eight conventional features affecting the dose delivery accuracy were used in the study, and 2,476 planomics features were extracted based on the radiotherapy plan file. Three prediction and classification models using conventional features (CF), planomics features (PF), and hybrid features (HF) combining two sets of features were constructed by the gradient boosting regressor (GBR) and Ridge classifier for each GPR of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively. The absolute prediction error (APE) and the area under the curve (AUC) were adopted for assessing the performance of prediction and classification models.Results: In the GPR prediction, the average APE of the models using CF, PF, and HF was 1.3 ± 1.2%/3.6 ± 3.0%, 1.7 ± 1.5%/3.8 ± 3.5%, and 1.1 ± 1.0%/4.1 ± 3.1% for 2%/2 mm; 0.7 ± 0.6%/2.0 ± 2.0%, 1.0±1.1%/2.2 ± 1.8%, and 0.6 ± 0.6%/2.2 ± 1.9% for 3%/2 mm; and 0.4 ± 0.3%/1.2 ± 1.2%, 0.4±0.5%/1.3 ± 1.0%, and 0.3±0.3%/1.2 ± 1.1% for 3%/3 mm, respectively. In the regression prediction, three models give a similar modeling performance for predicting the GPR. The classification results were 0.67 ± 0.03/0.66 ± 0.07, 0.77 ± 0.03/0.73 ± 0.06, and 0.78 ± 0.02/0.75 ± 0.04 for 3%/3 mm, respectively. For 3%/2 mm, the AUCs of the training and testing cohorts were 0.64 ± 0.03/0.62 ± 0.07, 0.70 ± 0.03/0.67 ± 0.06, and 0.75 ± 0.03/0.71 ± 0.07, respectively, and for 2%/2 mm, the average AUCs of the training and testing cohorts were 0.72 ± 0.03/0.72 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.04/0.73 ± 0.07, and 0.81 ± 0.03/0.75 ± 0.06, respectively. In the classification, the PF model has a better classification performance than the CF model. Moreover, the HF model provides the best result among the three classifications models.Conclusions: The planomics features can be used for predicting and classifying the GPR results and for improving the model performance after combining the conventional features for the GPR classification.

scholarly journals Comparison of hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and double arc VMAT technique in the treatment of prostate cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Amaloo ◽  
Daryl P. Nazareth ◽  
Lalith K. Kumaraswamy
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Hybrid Technique ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Single Arc

Abstract Background. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has quickly become accepted as standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer based on studies showing it is able to provide faster delivery with adequate target coverage and reduced monitor units while maintaining organ at risk (OAR) sparing. This study aims to demonstrate the potential to increase dose conformality with increased planner control and OAR sparing using a hybrid treatment technique compared to VMAT. Methods. Eleven patients having been previously treated for prostate cancer with VMAT techniques were replanned with a hybrid technique on Varian Treatment Planning System. Multiple static IMRT fields (2 to 3) were planned initially based on critical OAR to reduce dose but provide some planning treatment volume (PTV) coverage. This was used as a base dose plan to provide 30-35% coverage for a single arc VMAT plan. Results. The clinical VMAT plan was used as a control for the purposes of comparison. Average of all OAR sparing between the hybrid technique and VMAT showed the hybrid plan delivering less dose in almost all cases except for V80 of the bladder and maximum dose to right femoral head. PTV coverage was superior with the VMAT technique. Monitor unit differences varied, with the hybrid plan able to deliver fewer units 37% of the time, similar results 18% of the time, and higher units 45% of the time. On average, the hybrid plan delivered 10% more monitor units. Conclusions. The hybrid plan can be delivered in a single gantry rotation combining aspects of VMAT with regions of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) within the treatment arc.

Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using automated planning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengqiang Li ◽  
Cheng Tao ◽  
Tong Bai ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
Ying Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Efficiency Comparison ◽  
Beam Complexity

Abstract Background: To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit（MU）efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system with Auto-Planning module for Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configuration were used for each site in two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. Beam complexity was evaluated in terms of segment area(SA), segment width(SW), leaf sequence variability(LSV), aperture area variability(AAV), modulation complexity score(MCS) based on MLC sequence and MU. Results: With similar plan quality, the average SAs for Trilogy plans were smaller than those for Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm 2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm 2 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm 2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm 2 (p<0.05) for BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87±1.95cm vs.6.72±2.71cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84±2.56cm vs.8.09±2.63cm, p < 0.05). LSV was statistically significant smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84±0.033 vs.0.86±0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89±0.026 vs.0.90±0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was statistically significant larger for Trilogy than Synergy (NPC: 0.18±0.064 vs.0.14±0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46±0.15 vs.0.33±0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for the Trilogy were higher than those for the Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p<0.05) for the NPC cases, and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087(p<0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with Synergy plans, the average MU for Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6±74.1MU and 782.9±85.2MU (p>0.05) for the NPC cases, and 444.8±61.3MU and 393.8±75.3MU (p>0.05) for the BC cases. Conclusions: The pinnacle 3 Auto planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to obtain the same plan quality using Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that this two systems resulted in different SA, SW, LSV, AAV and MCS. As a result, we suggested that beam complexity should be considered in providing further methodologies while optimizing VMAT auto planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document