Abstract
In this study, the delivery quality assurance (DQA) results of commercially available dosimetric systems (ionization chamber and EBT film, MapCHECK, ArcCHECK, and dosimetry check (DC) software) for helical tomotherapy (HT) were compared, and the feasibility of performing pretreatment using MapCHECK, ArcCHECK, and DC for HT, instead of ionization chambers and EBT films, was assessed. Sixty-five HT-treated patients were considered. Point dose differences, dose profiles, and gamma passing rates were used to evaluate the agreement between the calculated and the measured data, and the outcomes of the four DQA devices were compared in various clinical cases. The calculated and the measured point doses were within ±5% of each other. In terms of the root-mean-square error (RMSE), the point dose differences were within 2.9 for the four tested devices in all of the studied cases. Gamma analysis was performed based on the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm passing rate criteria. In terms of the average RMSE, the gamma passing rates of the four tested DQA devices were within 2.85 (3%/3 mm) and 7.30 (2%/2 mm). These DQA systems could be used interchangeably for routine DQA pretreatment in HT cases.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
K. H. Chang et al., Prog. Med. Phys. 27, 111 (2016).
B. Cho, Radiat. Oncol. J. 36, 1 (2018).
K. H. Chang et al., Phys. Med. 31, 553 (2015).
R. Thiyagarajan et al., Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 21, 50 (2015).
M. Hussein et al., Radiother. Oncol. 109, 370 (2013).
S. Babic, J. Battista and K. Jordan, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 70, 1281 (2008).
S. Pallotta, L. Marrazzo and M. Bucciolini, Med. Phys. 34, 3724 (2007).
V. Chandraraj et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 12, 338 (2011).
L. Dong et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 56, 867 (2003).
A. Niroomand-Rad et al., Med. Phys. 25, 2093 (1998).
O. A. Zeidan et al., Med. Phys. 33, 4064 (2006).
P. A. Jursinic, R. Sharma and J. Reuter, Med. Phys. 37, 2837 (2010).
D. A. Low et al., Med. Phys. 38, 1313 (2011).
D. A. Low et al., Med. Phys. 30, 1706 (2003).
S. Pai et al., Med. Phys. 34, 2228 (2007).
Y. Zhu et al., Med. Phys. 24, 223 (1997).
M. Fuss et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 4211 (2007).
E. Spezi et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 3361 (2005).
C. Kong et al., Biomed. Imaging Interv. J. 8, 1 (2012).
J. L. Bedford et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 54, N167 (2009).
P. Hauri et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 15, 181 (2014).
A. J. Olch, Med. Phys. 39, 81 (2012).
C. Neilson, M. Klein, R. Barnett and S. Yartsev, Med. Dosim. 38, 77 (2013).
E. Infusino et al., Med. Dosim. 39, 276 (2014).
P. M. McCowan et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 62, 1600 (2017).
G. Narayanasamy et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 16, 5427 (2015).
J. Gimeno et al., Phys. Med. 30, 954 (2014).
E. Mezzenga et al., J. Instrum. 1, 1 (2014).
S. Deshpande et al., Med. Phys. 44, 5457 (2017).
E. Chung et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 19, 193 (2018).
MapCHECK™ Reference Guide. Document 1175011, Rev T, 23 September 2011. Sun Nuclear Corporation.
MapPHAN User’s Guide. Rotational Dosimetry Delivered. Document 1083012, Rev. A, 26 August 2009. Sun Nuclear Corporation.
ArcCHECK™ Reference Guide; 2008.
Dosimetry Check manual; 2015.
S. Bresciani et al., Radiother. Oncol. 118, 574 (2016).
S. Bresciani et al., Med. Phys. 40, 1 (2013).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Radiation Technology R&D program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (Grant nos. NRF-2017M2A2A6A01071192, NRF-2017-M2A2A6A01071189, NRF-2017M2A2A6A01070330, and NRF-2018R1D1A1B07050217).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chang, K.H., Kim, D.W., Choi, J.H. et al. Dosimetric Comparison of Four Commercial Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Devices for Helical Tomotherapy. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 76, 257–263 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.76.257
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.76.257