|
|
Zeng J, Lu L, Liu X, Hu C, Hong J, Guo F et al . Dosimetric response of the Delta4 system for small fields and the impact on dose verification accuracy. Int J Radiat Res 2025; 23 (3) :677-682 URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-6639-en.html
Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China , gfb803@fjmu.edu.cn
Abstract: (188 Views)
Background: This study investigates the dosimetric response of the Delta4 system to varying field sizes and assesses its accuracy in dose verification. Materials and Methods: Output factors for fields ranging from 1 × 1 cm² to 20 × 20 cm² were measured using PTW 60019 detector, PTW 60018 detector, and the Delta4 system. The PTW 60019 measurements were considered the gold standard and were compared with those from the other two detectors. Two test plans were developed to compare the dose verification results of the Delta4 system, both with and without output factor correction. Results: The PTW 60018 and IBA CC13 detector measurements, using the daisy-chaining method, demonstrated strong agreement with the gold standard. However, the Delta4 system showed an underestimation in the output factor of the 1×1 cm² field, with deviations of -2.259% for the 6 MV flattening filter (FF) beam and -3.343% for the 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam. After correcting the output factor, the gamma passes rate (3%/2mm) for test plan 2 featuring 1 × 1 cm² sub-fields improved from 67.3% to 95.7% for the 6 MV FF beam. Conclusions: The Delta4 system exhibits a dosimetric response issue when managing small fields. Output factor corrections are recommended for Delta4 dose verification results when dealing with field sizes less than 4 cm and a high number of sub-fields.
References
1. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, et al. (2018) Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys, 45(4): e53-e83. [ DOI:10.1002/mp.12810] 2. Alfonso R, Andreo P, Capote R, et al. (2008) A new formalism for reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields. Med Phys, 35(11): 5179-86. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3005481] 3. Derreumaux S, Etard C, Huet C, et al. (2008) Lessons from recent accidents in radiation therapy in France. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 131(1): 130-5. [ DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncn235] 4. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. (2009) Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys, 36(9): 4197-212. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3190392] 5. Palmans H, Andreo P, Huq MS, et al. (2018) Dosimetry of small static fields used in external photon beam radiotherapy: Summary of TRS-483, the IAEA-AAPM international Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination. Med Phys, 45(11): e1123-e45. [ DOI:10.1002/mp.13208] 6. Palmer AL, Dimitriadis A, Nisbet A, et al. (2015) Evaluation of Gafchromic EBT-XD film, with comparison to EBT3 film, and application in high dose radiotherapy verification. Phys Med Biol, 60(22): 8741-52. [ DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/60/22/8741] 7. Niroomand-Rad A, Blackwell CR, Coursey BM, et al. (1998) Radiochromic film dosimetry: recommendations of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 55. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys, 25(11): 2093-115. [ DOI:10.1118/1.598407] 8. Devic S, Tomic N, Lewis D. (2016) Reference radiochromic film dosimetry: Review of technical aspects. Phys Med, 32(4): 541-56. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.02.008] 9. Cusumano D, Fumagalli ML, Marchetti M, et al. (2015) Dosimetric verification of stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic radiotherapy dose distributions using Gafchromic EBT3. Med Dosim, 40(3): 226-31. [ DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2015.01.001] 10. de Vries JHW, Seravalli E, Houweling AC, et al. (2018) Characterization of a prototype MR-compatible Delta4 QA system in a 1.5 tesla MR-linac. Phys Med Biol, 63(2): 02NT. [ DOI:10.1088/1361-6560/aa9d26] 11. Bedford JL, Lee YK, Wai P, et al. (2009) Evaluation of the Delta4 phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med Biol, 54(9): N167-76. [ DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/N04] 12. Petrucci E, Radici L, Borca VC, et al. (2021) Delta4 Discover transmission detector: A comprehensive characterization for in-vivo VMAT monitoring. Phys Med, 85: 15-23. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.04.017] 13. Feygelman V, Forster K, Opp D, et al. (2009) Evaluation of a biplanar diode array dosimeter for quality assurance of step-and-shoot IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 10(4): 64-78. [ DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v10i4.3080] 14. Firouzjah RA, Nickfarjam A, Bakhshandeh M, et al. (2019) The use of EBT3 film and Delta4 for the dosimetric verification of EclipseTM treatment planning system in a heterogeneous chest phantom: an IMRT technique. Int J Radiat Res, 17(2): 355-61. 15. Dieterich S and Sherouse GW (2011) Experimental comparison of seven commercial dosimetry diodes for measurement of stereotactic radiosurgery cone factors. Med Phys, 38(7): 4166-73. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3592647] 16. Huq MS, Hwang M-S, Teo TP, et al. (2018) A dosimetric evaluation of the IAEA-AAPM TRS483 code of practice for dosimetry of small static fields used in conventional linac beams and comparison with IAEA TRS-398, AAPM TG51, and TG51 Addendum protocols. Med Phys, 45(9): 4257-73. [ DOI:10.1002/mp.13092] 17. Hanley J, Dresser S, Simon W, et al. (2021) AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys, 48(10): e830-e85. [ DOI:10.1002/mp.14992] 18. Desai V, Bayouth J, Smilowitz J, et al. (2021) A clinical validation of the MR-compatible Delta4 QA system in a 0.35 tesla MR linear accelerator. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 22(4):82-91. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.13216] 19. Bassinet C, Huet C, Derreumaux S, et al. (2013) Small fields output factors measurements and correction factors determination for several detectors for a CyberKnife® and linear accelerators equipped with microMLC and circular cones. Med Phys, 40(7): 071725. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4811139] 20. Benmakhlouf H, Sempau J, Andreo P (2014) Output correction factors for nine small field detectors in 6 MV radiation therapy photon beams: a PENELOPE Monte Carlo study. Med Phys, 41(4): 041711. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4868695] 21. Tani K, Fujita Y, Wakita A, et al. (2018) Density scaling of phantom materials for a 3D dose verification system. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 19(4): 103-113. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.12357] 22. Zhang, JY, Wu VW, Lu JY, et al. (2015) Dosimetric verification of stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer treatment plans using flattening filter-free beams. Tumori Journal, 101(6):631-636. [ DOI:10.5301/tj.5000363] 23. Cho S, Kim YH, Jeong JU, et al. (2024) Analysis on the delivery quality assurance using SunCHECK for the VMAT in halcyon linear accelerator. J Korean Phys Soc, 85(2):192-200. [ DOI:10.1007/s40042-024-01106-7] 24. Borca VC, Radici L, Petrucci E (2023) Preliminary evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med, 106:102528. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102528] 25. Cho S, Goh Y, Kim C, et al. (2019) Patient QA system using Delta4 phantom for tomotherapy a comparative study with EBT3 film. J Korean Phys Soc, 74(8):816-821. [ DOI:10.3938/jkps.74.816]
Send email to the article author
|
