|
Acceptance test for fan beam CT linac treatment planning system using AAPM TG 119 test cases
|
T. Wang   , P. Guo , M. Li , Q. Wang |
| Department of Radiotherapy, Internal Medicine, Radiology Department, Medical Imaging Department, Qingdao West Coast New Area People's Hospital, Qingdao 266400, China , 15166616377@163.com |
|
|
Abstract: (946 Views) |
Background: To assess accurately the URT treatment planning system from the United Imaging Healthcare, the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) TG 119 test plans for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) were used. Materials and Methods: Based on the URT-Linac 506C, the plans were sent to the phantom. The overall accuracy was tested and examined using five geometry tests supplied in TG 119 for various treatment modes of IMRT and VMAT, with three types of beams using the Flattening Filter modality, estimated using the URT-TPS Monte Carlo algorithm. Moreover, a Farmer-type ion chamber was used to measure the point values, and a film was used to measure the fluence. Results: The disparities between the measured point doses and the anticipated doses for the FF photon beams for static MLC, dynamic MLC, and VMAT were within 2.16%, 1.89%, and 1.89%, respectively. The TG 119 report confidence limits were all met, and SMLC, DMLC, and VMAT had gamma passing rates greater than 99.80%, 99.60%, and 99.70%, respectively. Conclusion: The URT treatment planning system and the URT-Linac 506C have correctly commissioned IMRT and VMAT processes, according to this analysis, which was completed following the recommendations given by TG 119. |
|
| Keywords: TG 119, linac 506C, URT-TPS, flattening filter, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy. |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 615 kb]
(444 Downloads)
|
|
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Radiation Biology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
1. 1. Boyer AL, Butler EB, Dipetrillo TA (2001) Intensity modulated radiation therapy collaborative working group. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 51(4): 880-914. [ DOI:10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01749-7] [ PMID] 2. Michael JZ, Zvi F, Laura H, et al. (2000) Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 55(3): 241-249. [ DOI:10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00100-0] [ PMID] 3. Lorenzo L, Fabrizio B, Gabriele S, et al. (2010) Accelerated partial breast irradiation with IMRT: new technical approach and interim analysis of acute toxicity in a phase III randomized clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 77(2): 509-515. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.070] [ PMID] 4. Nishi T, Nishimura Y, Shibata T, et al. (2013) Volume and dosimetric changes and initial clinical experience of a two-step adaptive intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) scheme for head and neck cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 106(1): 85-89. [ DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2012.11.005] [ PMID] 5. Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, et al. (1993) Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. Medical Physics, 20(6): 1709-1719. [ DOI:10.1118/1.596958] [ PMID] 6. Vulpen MV, Field C, Raaijmakers CP, et al. (2005) Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 62(5): 1535-1539. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.011] [ PMID] 7. Sharma SD, Upreti RR, Laskar S, et al. (2008) Estimation of risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis in adolescents with nasopharyngeal cancer treated using sliding window IMRT. Radiother Oncol, 86(2): 177-81. [ DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.019] [ PMID] 8. Otto K (2008) Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Medical Physics, 35(1): 310-317. [ DOI:10.1118/1.2818738] [ PMID] 9. Wolff D, Stieler F, Welzel G, et al. (2009) Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol, 93(2): 226-33. [ DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011] [ PMID] 10. Van Benthuysen L, Hales L, Podgorsak MB (2011) Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. IMRT for the treatment of distal esophageal cancer. Medical Dosimetry, 36(4): 404-409. [ DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.009] [ PMID] 11. Sharma S, Subramani V, Kumar P, et al. (2017) EP-1498: IMRT and VMAT commissioning for Versa HD linear accelerator using AAPM TG-119. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 123: S803-S804. [ DOI:10.1016/S0167-8140(17)31933-3] 12. Nelms BE, Chan MF, Jarry G, et al. (2013) Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. Med Phys, 40(11): 111722. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4826166] [ PMID] [ ] 13. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. (2009) IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys, 36(11): 5359-73. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3238104] [ PMID] 14. Knill C and Snyder M (2011) An analysis of confidence limit calculations used in AAPM Task Group No. 119[J]. Med Phys, 38(4): 1779-1784. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3560876] [ PMID] 15. Mynampati DK, Yaparpalvi R, Hong L, et al. (2012) Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). J Appl Clin Med Phys, 13(5): 3382. [ DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3382] [ PMID] [ ] 16. Wen N, Zhao B, Kim J, et al. (2014) Imrt and rapidarc commissioning of a truebeam linear accelerator using tg-119 protocol cases. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 15(5): 74-88. [ DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4843] [ PMID] [ ] 17. Murshed H, Liu HH, Liao Z, et al. (2004) Dose and volume reduction for normal lung using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 58(4): 1258-67. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.09.086] [ PMID] 18. Wieland P, Dobler B, Mai S, et al. (2004) IMRT for postoperative treatment of gastric cancer: covering large target volumes in the upper abdomen: a comparison of a step-and-shoot and an arc therapy approach [J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 59(4): 1236-1244. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.051] [ PMID] 19. Zhang J, Jiang D, Liu H, et al. (2020) Analyzation of the local confidence limits for IMRT and VMAT based on AAPM TG119 report. Med Dosim, 45: 66-72. [ DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2019.06.001] [ PMID] 20. Jiang DZ, Wang DJ, Shen JL, et al. (2021) Analyzing the performance of the URT treatment planning system and URT-Linac 506C for flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams of Monte Carlo algorithm by use of AAPM TG119 test cases. Int J Radiat Res, 19(3): 695-702. [ DOI:10.52547/ijrr.19.3.695] 21. LoSasso T, Chui CS, Ling CC (2001) Comprehensive quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy with a multileaf collimator used in the dynamic mode. Med Phys, 28(11): 2209-19. [ DOI:10.1118/1.1410123] [ PMID] 22. Kaviarasu K, Nambi RN, Hamid M, et al. (2017) Verification of dosimetric commissioning accuracy of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using task group-119 guidelines. J Med Phys, 42(4): 258-265. [ DOI:10.4103/jmp.JMP_16_17] [ PMID] [ ] 23. Kumar L, Bhushan M, Kishore V, et al. (2021) Dosimetric validation of Acuros® XB algorithm for RapidArc™ treatment technique: A post software upgrade analysis. J Cancer Res Ther, 17(6): 1491-1498. [ DOI:10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1154_19] [ PMID] 24. Laugeman E, Heermann A, Hilliard J, et al. (2020) Comprehensive validation of halcyon 2.0 plans and the implementation of patient specific QA with multiple detector platforms. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 21(7): 39-48. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.12881] [ PMID] [ ] 25. Kadam AS and Sharma S (2016) Estimation of local confidence limit for 6 MV photon beam IMRT system using AAPM TG 119 test protocol. International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology, 4(1): 4110. [ DOI:10.14319/ijcto.41.10] 26. Kaviarasu K, Nambi Raj NA, Hamid M, et al. (2017) Verification of dosimetric commissioning accuracy of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery using task group-119 guidelines. J Med Phys, 42(4): 258-265. [ DOI:10.4103/jmp.JMP_16_17] [ PMID] [ ] 27. Gordon JD, Krafft SP, Jang S, et al. (2011) Confidence limit variation for a single IMRT system following the TG 119 protocol. Med Phys 38: 1641-8. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3555298] [ PMID] 28. Yu L, Zhao J, Zhang Z, et al. (2021) Commissioning of and preliminary experience with a new fully integrated computed tomography linac. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 22(7): 208-223. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.13313] [ PMID] [ ] |
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
Wang T, Guo P, Li M, Wang Q. Acceptance test for fan beam CT linac treatment planning system using AAPM TG 119 test cases. Int J Radiat Res 2023; 21 (3) :571-576 URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4916-en.html
|
