Isocenter Check and QA of Tactic Radiosurgery Devices Using EPID

Kyo Chul Shin; Sang Gyu Choi; Jung Kee Kim; Dong Hyeok Jeong

doi:10.14316/pmp.2014.25.4.281

Journal List > Prog Med Phys > v.25(4) > 1098454

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Shin, Choi, Kim, and Jeong: Isocenter Check and QA of Tactic Radiosurgery Devices Using EPID

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2014;25(4):281-287.

Published online: 20 January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2014.25.4.281

Isocenter Check and QA of Tactic Radiosurgery Devices Using EPID

Kyo Chul Shin^∗, Sang Gyu Choi^∗, Jung Kee Kim^†, Dong Hyeok Jeong^†

^∗Department of Radiation Oncology, Dankook University Hospital, Cheonan, Korea

^†Research Center, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Busan, Korea

Correspondence: Sang Gyu Choi (amiran@hanmail.net) Tel:82-41-550-6934, Fax:82-41-556-0524

Received 5 December 2014 Revised 15 December 2014 Accepted 20 December 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The Winston Lutz test, which checks the accuracy of the isocenter for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), was performed with the commercial electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The usual Winston Lutz test with film was also performed for comparison with the test with EPID. The maximum difference in isocenter between the two methods was 0.32 mm. The Winston Lutz test using EPID is practical as it can reduce time and avoid human errors compared to the test with film.

Keywords: SRS, EPID, Winston Lutz Test, Quality assurance

References

1. Lutz W, Winston KR, Maleki N. A system for stereotactic radiosurgery with a linear accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1988; 14(2):373–81.

2. Podgorsak EB, Pike GB, Olivier A, Pla M, Souhami L. Radiosurgery with high energy photon beams: a comparison among techniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989; 16(3):857–65.

3. Podgorsak EB, Pike GB, Pla M, Olivier A, Souhami L. Radiosurgery with photon beams: physical aspects and adequacy of linear accelerators. Radiother Oncol. 1990; 17(4):349–58.

4. Ramaseshan R and Heydarian M. Comprehensive quality assurance for stereotactic radiosurgery treatments. Phys Med Biol. 2003; 48(14):N199–N205.

5. Verellen D, Linthout N, Bel A, et al. Assessment of the uncertainties in dose delivery of a commercial system for linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 44(2):421–33.

6. Serago ChF. Lewin AA, Houdek PV, et al. Radiosurgery target point alignment errors detected with portal film verification. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992; 24(4):777–80.

7. Leksell L. The stereotaxic method and radiosurgery of the brain. Acta Chir Scand. 1951; 102(4):316–19.

8. Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Mahsheed Sabet, Daryi J. OConnor, Peter B. Greer, et, al: Isocenter verification for linac-based stereotactic radiation therapy: review of principles and techniques. J of Appl. Clini. Med. Phy. 2011; 12(4):

9. E. Shaw, C. Scott, L. Souhami, et al: Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: Final report of RTOG protocol 90–05 Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 47 (. 2000. ), pp.291–298.

10. L. Walton, A. Hampshire, A. Roper, et al: Development of a relocatable frame technique for gamma knife radiosurgery: Technical note J Neurosurg, 93 (. 2000. ), pp.198–202.

11. H. Shirato, T. Sakamoto, N. Takeuchi, et al: Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannoma (vs): Comparison between cystic-type and solid-type vs, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 48 (. 2000. ), pp.1395–1401.

12. J.A. Williams: Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for acoustic neuromas, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 54 (. 2002. ), pp.500–504.

13. Zheng C, Zhiheng W, Jinli M, et al. Six degree-of-freedom image guidance for frameless intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery with kilovoltage cone-beam CT, J Nucl Med Radiat Ther. 2010; 1:101.

Fig. 1.

Clinical linear accelerator (RapidArc Varian Co.).

Fig. 2.

Image of micro-multileaf collimator (m3, BrainLab).

Fig. 3.

Electronic portal imaging device (EPID, Varian Co.).

Fig. 4.

Imge of Winston Lutz Test Tool Sets.

Fig. 5.

The setup for a Winston Lutz Test ball at the isocenter.

Fig. 6.

The image of film setup for Winston Lutz Test at gantry 0^o and Table 0^o.

Fig. 7.

The image of film setup for Winston Lutz Test at gantry 90^o and Table 0^o.

Fig. 8.

The image of EPID setup for Winston Lutz Test at gantry 0^o and Table 0^o.

Fig. 9.

The image of EPID setup for Winston Lutz Test at gantry 180^o and Table 0^o.

Fig. 10.

The results of Winston Lutz Test for clinical linear accelerator.

Fig. 11.

Film of a passed Winstion-Lutz test m3 for radiation field and isocenter for FSRT.

Fig. 12.

EPID results of a passed Winstion-Lutz test m3 for radiation field and isocenter.

Table 1.

The results of film for winston lutz test at various gantry and couch angles.

Gantry Table Δx Δy X	G=0						G=90						G=180
Gantry Table Δx Δy X	T=0		T=90		T=270		T=0		T=0		T=90		T=270
	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm) X	(mm) Y	(mm)x	(mm) Y
	0.10	−0.60	−0.10	0.50	0.80	0.00	0.01 −	−0.01	0.00	0.60	1.10	1.10 −	−0.03	0.30
	0.30	−0.20	1.10	−0.01	0.01	−0.40	0.80 −	−0.10	0.30	0.15	1.10	1.10 −	−0.30	0.50
	−0.01	−0.80	−0.30	0.85	1.10	−0.01	0.30 −	−0.25	0.60	0.15	1.10	1.10 −	−0.40	0.25
	0.01	−0.30	−0.20	0.90	1.10	0.01	0.15 −	−0.01	0.20	0.00	1.10	1.10 −	−0.20	0.60
	−0.01	0.10	−0.20	0.80	0.80	0.00	0.15	0.01	0.70	0.05	0.90	1.10 −	−0.15	0.40
Mean	0.08	−0.36	0.06	0.61	0.76	−0.08	0.28 −	−0.07	0.36	0.19	1.06	1.10 −	−0.22	0.41
St.Dev.	0.13	0.35	0.59	0.38	0.45	0.18	0.31	0.11	0.29	0.24	0.09	0.00	0.14	0.14
Min	−0.01	−0.80	−0.30	−0.01	0.01	−0.40	0.01 −	−0.25	0.00	0.00	0.90	1.10 −	−0.40	0.25
Max	0.30	0.10	1.10	0.90	1.10	0.01	0.80	0.01	0.70	0.60	1.10	1.10　 −	−0.03	0.60

Table 2.

The results of EPID images for winston lutz test at various gantry and couch angles.

Gantry Table Δx Δy X	G=0						G=90						G=180
Gantry Table Δx Δy X	T=0		T=90		T=270		T=0		T=0		T=90		T=270
	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)
	0.01	−0.05	0.01	−0.90	0.50	−0.10	−0.15	−0.10	−0.40	0.00	0.50	0.50	−0.15	0.01
	−0.01	−0.90	−0.20	0.01	0.20	−0.60	0.00	−0.15	0.00	−0.01	0.80	0.85	−0.01	0.25
	0.00	−0.80	−0.30	0.85	1.00	−0.01	0.30	−0.10	0.30	0.10	1.00	1.00	−0.20	0.30
	0.01	−0.30	−0.05	0.70	0.70	0.30	0.20	−0.15	0.40	0.40	1.10	0.90	−0.30	0.40
	−0.01	−0.40	−0.10	0.80	0.85	0.05	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.30	1.00	1.00	−0.15	0.50
Mean	0.00	−0.49	−0.13	0.29	0.65	−0.07	0.09	−0.09	0.08	0.16	0.88	0.85	−0.16	0.29
St. Dev.	0.01	0.35	0.12	0.75	0.31	0.33	0.17	0.08	0.31	0.18	0.24	0.21	0.10	0.18
Min	−0.01	−0.90	−0.30	−0.90	0.20	−0.60	−0.15	−0.15	−0.40	−0.01	0.50	0.50	−0.30	0.01
Max	0.01	−0.05	0.01	0.85	1.00	0.30	0.30	0.05	0.40	0.40	1.10	1.00	−0.01	0.50

Table 3.

Difference of results in film and EPID for winston lutz test at varius gantry and couch angles.

Gantry Table Δx Δy X	G=0						G=90						G=180
Gantry Table Δx Δy X	T=0		T=90		T=270		T=0		T=0		T=90		T=270
	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm)	X (mm)	Y (mm
Film	0.08	−0.36	0.06	0.61	0.76	−0.08	0.28	−0.07	0.36	0.19	1.06	1.10	−0.22	0.41
EPID	0.00	−0.49	−0.13	0.29	0.65	−0.07	0.09	−0.09	0.08	0.16	0.88	0.85	−0.16	0.29
Diff.	0.08	0.13	0.19	0.32	0.11	−0.01	0.19	0.02	0.28	0.03	0.18	0.25	−0.05	0.12

TOOLS

Similar articles