Development of a quasi‐3D dosimeter using radiochromic plastic for patient‐specific quality assurance

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐specific QA verification ensures patient safety and treatment by verifying radiation delivery and dose calculations in treatment plans for errors. However, a two‐dimensional (2D) dose distribution is insufficient for detecting information on the three‐dimensional (3D) dose delivered to the patient. In addition, 3D radiochromic plastic dosimeters (RPDs) such as PRESAGE® represent the volume effect in which the dosimeters have different sensitivities according to the size of the dosimeters. Therefore, to solve the volume effect, a Quasi‐3D dosimetry system was proposed to perform patient‐specific QA using predetermined‐sized and multiple RPDs.PurposeFor patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) in radiation treatment, this study aims to assess a quasi‐3D dosimetry system using an RPD.MethodsGamma analysis was performed to verify the agreement between the measured and estimated dose distributions of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We fabricated cylindrical RPDs and a quasi‐3D dosimetry phantom. A practicability test for a pancreatic patient utilized a quasi‐3D dosimetry device, an in‐house RPD, and a quasi‐3D phantom. The dose distribution of the VMAT design dictated the placement of nine RPDs. Moreover, a 2D diode array detector was used for 2D gamma analysis (MapCHECK2). The patient‐specific QA was performed for IMRT, VMAT, and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in 20 prostate and head‐and‐neck patients. For each patient, six RPDs were positioned according to the dose distribution. VMAT SABR and IMRT/VMAT plans employed a 2%/2 mm gamma criterion, whereas IMRT/VMAT plans used a 3%/2 mm gamma criterion, a 10% threshold value, and a 90% passing rate tolerance. 3D gamma analysis was conducted using the 3D Slicer software.ResultsThe average gamma passing rates with 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria for relative dose distribution were 91.6% ± 1.4% and 99.4% ± 0.7% for the 3D gamma analysis using the quasi‐3D dosimetry system, respectively, and 97.5% and 99.3% for 2D gamma analysis using MapCHECK2, respectively. The 3D gamma analysis for patient‐specific QA of 20 patients showed passing rates of over 90% with 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria.ConclusionsThe quasi‐3D dosimetry system was evaluated by performing patient‐specific QAs with RPDs and quasi‐3D phantom. The gamma indices for all RPDs showed more than 90% for 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria. We verified the feasibility of a quasi‐3D dosimetry system by performing the conventional patient‐specific QA with the quasi‐3D dosimeters.