Affiliation:
1. Department of Radiation Oncology Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University Augusta Georgia USA
2. Nuclear/Radiological Engineering/Medical Physics Department Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta Georgia USA
3. Department of Radiation Oncology Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta Georgia USA
4. Department of Radiation Oncology University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA
Abstract
AbstractStereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) methods have become common for the treatment of small tumors in various parts of the body. Small field dosimetry has a unique set of challenges when it comes to the pre‐treatment validation of a radiotherapy plan that involves film dosimetry or high‐resolution detectors. Comparison of commercial quality assurance (QA) devices to the film dosimetry method for pre‐treatment evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), fractionated SRT, and stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment plans have been evaluated in this study. Forty stereotactic QA plans were measured using EBT‐XD film, IBA Matrixx Resolution, SNC ArcCHECK, Varian aS1200 EPID, SNC SRS MapCHECK, and IBA myQA SRS. The results of the commercial devices are compared to the EBT‐XD film dosimetry results for each gamma criteria. Treatment plan characteristics such as modulation factor and target volume were investigated for correlation with the passing rates. It was found that all detectors have greater than 95% passing rates at 3%/3 mm. Passing rates decrease rapidly for ArcCHECK and the Matrixx as criteria became more strict. In contrast, EBT‐XD film, SNC SRS MapCHECK, and IBA myQA SRS passing rates do not decline as rapidly when compared to Matrix Resolution, ArcCHECK, and the EPID. EBT‐XD film, SNC SRS MapCHECK, and IBA myQA SRS maintain greater than 90% passing rate at 2%/1 mm and greater than 80% at 1%/1 mm. Additionally, the ability of these devices to detect changes in dose distribution due to MLC positioning errors was investigated. Ten VMAT SBRT/SRS treatment plans were created with 6 MV FFF or 10 MV FFF beam energies using Eclipse 15.6. A MATLAB script was used to create two MLC positioning error scenarios from the original treatment plan. It was found that errors in MLC positioning were most reliably detected at 2%/1 mm for high‐resolution detectors and that lower‐resolution detectors did not consistently detect MLC positioning errors.
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Instrumentation,Radiation
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献