Feasibility Study of a Custom-made Film for End-to-End Quality Assurance Test of Robotic Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy System

Juhye Kim; Kwangwoo Park; Jeongmin Yoon; Eungman Lee; Samju Cho; Sohyun Ahn; Jeongeun Park; Wonhoon Choi; Ho Lee

doi:10.14316/pmp.2016.27.4.189

Journal List > Prog Med Phys > v.27(4) > 1098552

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Park, Yoon, Lee, Cho, Ahn, Park, Choi, and Lee: Feasibility Study of a Custom-made Film for End-to-End Quality Assurance Test of Robotic Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy System

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2016;27(4):189-195.

Published online: 17 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2016.27.4.189

Feasibility Study of a Custom-made Film for End-to-End Quality Assurance Test of Robotic Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy System

Juhye Kim^∗, Kwangwoo Park^†, Jeongmin Yoon^†, Eungman Lee^†, Samju Cho^†, Sohyun Ahn^†, Jeongeun Park^∗, Wonhoon Choi^†, Ho Lee^†,

^∗Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea

^†Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Ho Lee (holee@yuhs.ac) Tel: 82-2-2228-4363, Fax: 82-2-2227-7823

Received 10 November 20167 December 2016 Accepted 8 December 2016

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

This paper aims to verify the clinical feasibility of a custom-made film created by a laser cutting tool for End-to-End (E2E) quality assurance in robotic intensity modulated radiation therapy system. The custom-made film was fabricated from the Gafchromic EBT3 film with the size of 8”×10” using a drawing that is identical to the shape and scale of the original E2E film. The drawing was created by using a computer aided design program with the image file, which is obtained by scanning original E2E film. Beam delivery and evaluations were respectively performed with the original film and the custom-made film using fixed-cone collimator on three tracking modes: 6D skull (6DS), Xsight spine (XS), and Xsight lung (XL). The differences between total targeting errors of the original and custom-made films were recorded as 0.17 mm, 0.3 mm, and 0.17 mm at 6DS, XS, and XL tracking modes, respectively. This indicates that the custom-made film could yield nearly equivalent results to those of the original E2E film, given the uncertainties caused by distortions during film scanning and vibrations associated with film cutting. By confirming the clinical feasibility of a custom-made film for E2E testing, it can be expected that economic efficiency of the testing will increase accordingly.

Keywords: End-to-End test, Quality assurance, CyberKnife, Robotic IMRT

REFERENCES

1. Gallo J.J., Kaufman I., Powell R., et al. Single-fraction spine SBRT end-to-end testing on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam, and CyberKnife treatment platforms using a novel anthropomorphic phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 16(1):2015.

2. Dieterich S., Rodgers J., Chan R.Radiosurgery. in. Image-Guided Interventions. Springer;2008. p. 461–500.

3. Dieterich S., Ford E., Pavord D., Zeng J.SRS and SBRT. in. Practical Radiation Oncology Physics: A Companion to Gunderson & Tepper's Clinical Radiation Oncology. Elsevier Health Sciences;2015. p. 228–240.

4. Seung S.K., Larson D.A., Galvin J.M., et al. American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) practice guideline for the performance of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). American Journal of Clinical Oncology. 36(3):310. 2013.

5. Sahgal A., Roberge D., Schellenberg D., et al. The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology scope of practice guidelines for lung, liver and spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. Clinical Oncology. 24(9):629–639. 2012.

6. Eshleman J.S., Berkenstock K.G., Singapuri K.P., Fuller C.The CyberKnife® M6™ radiosurgery system. J Lanc Gen Hosp. 8:44–9. 2013.

7. McGuinness C.M., Gottschalk A.R., Lessard E., et al. Investigating the clinical advantages of a robotic linac equipped with a multileaf collimator in the treatment of brain and prostate cancer patients. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 16(5):2015.

8. Dieterich S., Cavedon C., Chuang C.F., et al. Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery. Medical Physics. 38(6):2914–2936. 2011.

9. Ho A., Cotrutz C., Chang S.D., Adler J.R., Gibbs I.Quality assurance of the Cyberknife fiducial and skull tracking systems. in. Radiosurgery. Karger Publishers;2004. p. 255–259.

10. Solberg T.D., Medin P.M., Mullins J., Li S.Quality assurance of immobilization and target localization systems for frameless stereotactic cranial and extracranial hypofractionated radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology∗ Biology∗ Physics. 71(1):S131–S135. 2008.

11. Nobah A., Aldelaijan S., Devic S., et al. Radiochromic film based dosimetry of image-guidance procedures on different radiotherapy modalities. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 15(6):2014.

12. Radovanovic M., Madic M.Experimental investigations of CO2 laser cut quality: a review. Revista de Tehnologii Neconventionale. 15(4):35. 2011.

13. Yilbas B., Davies R., Yilbas Z.Study into the measurement and prediction of penetration time during CO2 laser cutting process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 204(2):105–113. 1990.

Fig. 1.

Overview of robotic IMRT M6 system.

Fig. 2.

Drawing an assembly diagram for E2E test (using Q-CAD program).

Fig. 3.

Laser cutting machine (Microlaser C40, CORYART).

Fig. 4.

Setting parameters: the size and the area of the film to be cut.

Fig. 5.

Setting parameters: laser cutting start point, step distance, laser speed, and so forth.

Fig. 6.

Setting parameters: laser speed and power, On/Off delay time, and so forth.

Fig. 7.

(a) The ball cube for 6DS tracking mode test. (b) A pair of custom-made films for 6DS tracking mode test. (c) Head-and-Neck phantom used for static tracking modes. (d) The mini ball cube for XS tracking mode test. (e) A pair of custom-made films for XS tracking mode test.

Fig. 8.

(a) Xsight Lung Tracking Phantom kit. (b) The film cube located in the moving rod. (c) A pair of custom-made films for XLT mode test.

Table 1.

6D Skull (6DS) trackingmode:

Error (mm)	Original film	Custom-made film
Left	0.03	−0.12
Anterior (A-L)	0.84	0.15
Superior	0.82	0.89
Anterior (A-S)	0.64	0.41
Average anterior	0.74	0.28
Total targeting	1.11	0.94

Table 2.

Xsight Spine (XS) tracking mode: error information

Error (mm)	Original film	Custom-made film
Left	0.44	0.1
Anterior (A-L)	0.15	−0.14
Superior	0.03	0.15
Anterior (A-S)	0.47	−0.19
Average anterior	0.31	−0.16
Total targeting	0.54	0.24

Table 3.

Xsight Lung Tracking (XLT) mode: error information.

Error (mm)	Original film	Custom-made film
Left	−0.37	−0.27
Anterior (A-L)	−0.74	−0.4
Superior Anterior (A-S)	1.03 −0.66	1.33 −0.75
Average anterior	−0.7	−0.57
Total targeting	1.3	1.47

Table 4.

The result of the error information at 6DS tracking mode with custom-made film. Scanning and analysis were performed 10 times, respectively.

Error (mm)	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	Average	Standard deviation
Left	−0.23	−0.16	−0.15	−0.16	−0.16	−0.16	−0.16	−0.16	−0.17	−0.16	−0.17	0.023
Anterior	−0.4	−0.38	−0.39	−0.38	−0.37	−0.39	−0.38	−0.38	−0.38	−0.38	−0.38	0.008
(A-L)
Superior	0.27	0.28	0.28	0.29	0.29	0.29	0.28	0.28	0.28	0.27	0.28	0.007
Anterior	−0.05	−0.05	−0.04	−0.03	−0.05	−0.04	−0.04	−0.04	−0.04	−0.03	−0.04	0.007
(A-S)
Average	−0.23	−0.21	−0.22	−0.2	−0.21	−0.21	−0.21	−0.21	−0.21	−0.2	−0.21	0.009
anterior
Total targeting	0.42	0.39	0.38	0.38	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.39	0.38	0.39	0.012

TOOLS

Similar articles