Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance
Author:
Baek Seung-HyeopORCID, Choi Sang-HyounORCID, Han Moo-Jae, Cho Gyu-Seok, Jang Wonil, Kim Jin-Sung, Kim Kum-BaeORCID
Abstract
Pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is critical to prevent radiation accidents. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dose measurement tool with good resolution and a low volume-averaging effect. EPIbeam—an EPID-based portal dosimetry software—has been newly installed in three institutions in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy of the EPID-based patient-specific QA tool versus the PTW729 detector (a previously used QA tool) based on gamma criteria and planning target volume (PTV). A significant difference was confirmed through the R statistical analysis software. The average gamma passing rates of PTW729 and EPIbeam were 98.73% and 99.60% on 3 mm/3% (local), 96.66% and 97.91% on 2 mm/2% (local), and 88.41% and 74.87% on 1 mm/1% (local), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.015 (3 mm/3%, local), 0.084 (2 mm/2%, local), and less than 0.01 (1 mm/1%, local). Further, the average gamma passing rates of PTW 729 and EPIbeam according to PTV size were 99.55% and 99.91% (PTV < 150 cm3) and 97.91% and 99.28% (PTV > 150 cm3), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.087 (PTV < 150 cm3) and 0.036 (PTV > 150 cm3). These results confirm that EPIbeam can be an effective patient-specific QA tool.
Funder
Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) of the Republic of Korea
Subject
Paleontology,Space and Planetary Science,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference25 articles.
1. Monaco treatment planning system tools and optimization processes;Med. Dosim.,2018 2. Public interest in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the United States;J. Radiosurg. SBRT.,2020 3. Dosimetric effects of differences in multi-leaf collimator speed on SBRT-VMAT for central lung cancer patients;Technol. Cancer Res. Treat.,2022 4. Kruszyna, M., Skrobala, A., Romanski, P., Ryczkowski, A., Suchorska, W., Kulcenty, K., Piotrowski, I., Borowicz, D., Graczyk, K., and Matuszak, N. (2022). Influence of Specific Treatment Parameters on Nontarget and Out-of-Field Doses in a Phantom Model of Prostate SBRT with CyberKnife and TrueBeam. Life, 12. 5. Serra, M., de Martino, F., Savino, F., D’Alesio, V., Arrichiello, C., Quarto, M., Loffredo, F., di Franco, R., Borzillo, V., and Muto, M. (2022). SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric study. Life, 12.
|
|