Journal List > Prog Med Phys > v.26(4) > 1098482

TOOLS
Kim, Jeong, Yoon, Ahn, Chung, Nam, and Song: Evaluation of 3DVH Software for the Patient Dose Analysis in TomoTherapy
Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2015;26(4):201-207.

Published online: 20 January 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.4.201

Evaluation of 3DVH Software for the Patient Dose Analysis in TomoTherapy

Yong-Hyeob Kim†, Jae-Uk Jeong†, Mee Sun Yoon∗, Sung-Ja Ahn∗, Woong-Ki Chung∗, Taek-Keun Nam∗, Ju-Young Song∗

∗Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea

†Department of Radiation Oncology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea

Correspondence: Taek-Keun Nam (tknam@chonnam.ac.kr) Tel: 82-61-379-7224, Fax: 82-61-379-7249

Received 1 December 2015       Revised 17 December 2015       Accepted 18 December 2015

Copyright © 2015 Korean Society of Medical Physics

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 new function of 3DVH software for dose calculation inside the patient undergoing TomoTherapy treatment by applying the measured data obtained by ArcCHECK was recently released. In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of 3DVH for the TomoTherapy DQA process was evaluated by the comparison of measured dose distribution with the dose calculated using 3DVH. The 2D diode detector array MapCHECK phantom was used for the TomoTherapy planning of virtual patient and for the measurement of the compared dose. The average pass rate of gamma evaluation between the measured dose in the MapCHECK phantom and the recalculated dose in 3DVH was 92.6±3.5%, and the error was greater than the average pass rate, 99.0±1.2%, in the gamma evaluation results with the dose calculated in TomoTherapy planning system. The error was also greater than that in the gamma evaluation results in the RapidArc analysis, which showed the average pass rate of 99.3± 0.9%. The evaluated accuracy of 3DVH software for TomoTherapy DQA process in this study seemed to have some uncertainty for the clinical use. It is recommended to perform a proper analysis before using the 3DVH software for dose recalculation of the patient in the TomoTherapy DQA process considering the initial application stage in clinical use.

Keywords: 3DVH, TomoTherapy, Delivery quality assurance (DQA), ArcCHECK, RapidArc

References

1. Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys. 30(8):2089–115. 2003.
crossref
2. Palta JR, Liu C, Li JG. Quality assurance of Intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 71:(. (1 Suppl):):. S108–12. 2008.
crossref
3. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 36(11):5359–73. 2009.
crossref
4. Korevaar EW, Wauben DJ, Langendijk JA, et al. Clinical introduction of linac head-mounted 2D detector array based quality assurance system in head and neck IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 100(3):446–52. 2011.
5. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 38(2):1037–44. 2011.
6. Van Elmpt W, Nijsten S, Mijnheer B, et al. The next step in patient-specific QA: 3D dose verification of conformal and intensitymodulated RT based on EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo dose calculations. Radiother Oncol. 86(1):86–92. 2008.
crossref
7. Olch AJ. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA. Med Phys. 39(1):81–6. 2012.
crossref
8. Nelms BE, Opp D, Robinson J, et al. VMAT QA: measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. Med Phys. 39(7):4228–38. 2012.
crossref
9. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Latorre A, et al. 3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. Med Phys. 39(8):5040–9. 2012.
crossref
10. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, et al. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 39(12):7626–34. 2012.
crossref
11. Nakaguchi Y, Araki F, Maruyama M, et al. Dose verification of IMRT by use of a COMPASS transmission detector. Radiol Phys Technol. 5(1):63–70. 2012.
crossref
12. Visser R, Wauben DJ, De Groot M, et al. Efficient and reliable 3D dose quality assurance for IMRT by combining independent dose calculations with measurements. Med Phys. 40(2):021710–1. -6 (. 2013.
crossref
13. Opp D, Nelms BE, Zhang G, et al. Validation of measurement-guided 3D VMAT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 14(1):70–84. 2013.
crossref

Fig. 1.
MapCHECK combined with MapPHAN phantom for the dose measurement in TomoTherapy treatment.
pmp-26-201f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Example of the contours for target and OARs delineated on the MapCHECK phantom. (a) Prostate plan, (b) Head plan.
pmp-26-201f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Dose measurement with ArcCHECK for the TomoTherapy delivery quality assurance (DQA).
pmp-26-201f3.tif
Fig. 4.
MapCHECK combined with MapPHAN phantom for the dose measurement in RapidArc treatment.
pmp-26-201f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Comparison of the average pass rate calculated in a gamma evaluation between a measured dose in MapCHECK and a predicted dose in each dose calculation tool.
pmp-26-201f5.tif
Table 1.
Dose prescription for the planning of Tomo Therapy and RapidArc.
Prostate Plan  
CTV V220 cGy＞95%
Pelvic lymph node V180 cGy＞95%
Bladder Dmax＜210 cGy, V140 cGy＜40%
Rectum Dmax＜210 cGy, V140 cGy＜40%
Femoral head Dmax＜120 cGy, V90 cGy＜20%
Head Plan  
GTV V210 cGy＞95%
CTV V180 cGy＞95%
Spinal cord Dmax＜110 cGy
Parotid gland Dmean＜65 cGy
Thyroid gland Dmean＜90 cGy
Table 2.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation in TomoTherapy DQA process using ArcCHECK (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 98.5 99.2 98.4 99.9 99.0 97.9 98.3 98.6 97.2 95.7 98.3±1.2
Table 3.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation between a measured TomoTherapy dose in MapCHECK and a calculated dose in TomoTherapy planning system (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 99.7 99.7 97.9 99.7 100.0 100.0 97.3 96.9 99.6 98.9 99.0±1.2
Table 4.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation between a measured TomoTherapy dose in MapCHECK and a calculated dose in 3DVH (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 98.3 95.7 91.2 87.2 95.7 87.2 92.0 93.0 92.7 93.3 92.6±3.5
Table 5.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation in RapidArc DQA process using ArcCHECK (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 98.7 98.8 99.3 97.8 99.2 99.8 100.0 99.7 99.8 99.7 99.3±0.7
Table 6.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation between a measured RapidArc dose in MapCHECK and a calculated dose in Eclipse planning system (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 98.8 99.6 100.0 99.6 99.6 99.0 100.0 99.3 98.6 100.0 99.5±0.5
Table 7.
The pass rate calculated by a gamma evaluation between a measured RapidArc dose in MapCHECK and a calculated dose in 3DVH (prostate plan: A∼E, head plan: F∼J).
Patient A B C D E F G H I J Average
Pass rate (%) 99.2 98.0 97.5 100.0 99.6 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3±0.9
TOOLS
Similar articles