Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-Standard Use of TomoTherapy Exit Imaging Detectors for Quality Assurance Procedures

  • Published:
Moscow University Physics Bulletin Aims and scope

Abstract

Verification of radiation therapy plans on the TomoTherapy device is generally performed by comparing the measured dose distribution in the phantom with the calculated dose from the TomoTherapy planning system. However, the number of points at which measurement is possible is limited, and the time of the verification procedure exceeds the time of the patient treatment. At the same time, the exit detectors of the machine have the ability to measure the output radiation fluence throughout the entire irradiation time, they have a high spatial resolution, and do not require additional installation efforts. The article develops a method for processing data from the exit detectors of TomoTherapy and for comparing them with data from the planning system. An application has been created in the MATLAB that processes 2 types of data: a radiation therapy plan in DICOM format from the planning system and raw data from the exit detectors. A method for resulting the data to a single view is developed by taking into account correction factors, such as background radiation, the shape of the detector, the influence of neighboring leaves, and the leaf-channel relationship. It is possible to compare two sets of data using a two-dimensional gamma index. The created method will make the verification of radiation therapy plans more accurate and easier, and in the future, it can help evaluate the accuracy of dose delivery and the accuracy of patient positioning during treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. T. R. Macki, T. W. Holmes, S. Swerdloff, et al., Medical Physics 20, 1709 (1993).

  2. L. Gonzalez, E. Vano, S. Oliete, et al., The British Journal of radiology 72, 186.

  3. M. Alber, S. Broggi, C. De Wagter, et al., ESTRO Booklet 7 (2008).

  4. Yan Y., Papanikolaou N., Weng X., et al., Medical Physics 32, 1566 (2005).

  5. Mancosu P., Navarria P., Reggiori G., et al., Radiation Oncology 10 (1) (2015).

  6. C. W. Kong, S. K. Yu, K. Y. Cheung, et al., Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 8 (2) (2012).

  7. S. Xu, C. Xie, Z. Ju, et al., Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 6 (2) (2010).

  8. H. Palmans, R. A. S. Thomas, S. Duane, et al., Medical Physics 37 (6), 2876 (2010).

  9. J. M. Kapatoes, G. H. Olivera, P. J. Reckwerdt, et al., Physics in Medicine & Biology 44 (7), 1815 (1999).

  10. O. Pisaturo, F. Miéville, P. A. Tercier, and A. S. Allal, Physics in Medicine & Biology 60 (4), 1625 (2015).

  11. S. Deshpande, A. Xing, P. Metcalfe, et al., Medical Physics 44 (10), 5457 (2017).

  12. H. O. Wooten, S. M. Goddu, V. Rodriguez, et al., Medical Physics 39 (10), 6407 (2012).

  13. L. L. Handsfield, R. Jones, D. D. Wilson, et al., Medical Physics 41 (10), 101703 (2014).

  14. K. M. Langen, N. Papanikolaou, J. Balog, et al., Medical Physics 37 (9), 4817 (2010).

  15. J. D. Fenwick, W. A. Tome, H. A. Jaradat, et al., Physics in Medicine & Biology 49 (13), 2933 (2004).

  16. J. B. Scherman, C. Ceberg, and S. Ceberg, Lund University (2009).

  17. M. Hussein, C. H. Clark, and A. Nisbet, Physica Medica 36, 1 (2017).

  18. E. Spezi and D. G. Lewis, Radiotherapy and Oncology 79 (2), 224 (2006).

  19. D. Sevillano, C. Minguez, A. Sanchez, and A. Sanchez-Reyes, Medical Physics 39 (11), 6972 (2012).

  20. J. Balog, G. Olivera, and J. Kapatoes, Medical Physics 30 (12), 3097 (2003).

Download references

Funding

This research was performed according to the Development program of the Interdisciplinary Scientific and Educational School of Moscow State University ‘‘Photonic and Quantum Technologies. Digital Medicine.’’

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics of Accelerators and Radiation Medicine, Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University, 119991, Moscow, Russia

    D. A. Tovmasian, A. A. Loginova & A. V. Nechesnyuk

  2. Radiotherapy Department, Dmitry Rogachev National Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, 117997, Moscow, Russia

    D. A. Tovmasian & A. P. Chernyaev

Authors
  1. D. A. Tovmasian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. A. Loginova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. P. Chernyaev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. V. Nechesnyuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to D. A. Tovmasian or A. A. Loginova.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tovmasian, D.A., Loginova, A.A., Chernyaev, A.P. et al. Non-Standard Use of TomoTherapy Exit Imaging Detectors for Quality Assurance Procedures. Moscow Univ. Phys. 76, 470–476 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3103/S0027134921060096

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0027134921060096

Keywords:

Search

Navigation