Abstract
Dose verifications for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are generally performed once before treatment. A 39‐fraction treatment course for prostate cancer delivers a dose prescription of 78 Gy in eight weeks. Any changes in multileaf collimator leaf position over the treatment course may affect the dosimetry. To evaluate the magnitude of deviations from the predicted dose over an entire treatment course with MLC leaf calibrations performed every two weeks, we tracked weekly changes in relative dose error distributions measured with two‐dimensional (2D) beam‐by‐beam analysis. We compared the dosimetric results from 20 consecutive patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) tests using beam‐by‐beam analysis and a 2D diode detector array to the dose plans calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). We added back the resulting relative dose error measured weekly into the original dose grid for each beam. To validate the prediction method, the predicted doses and dose distributions were compared to the measurements using an ionization chamber and film. The predicted doses were in good agreement, within 2% of the measured doses, and the predicted dose distributions also presented good agreement with the measured distributions. Dose verification results measured once as a pretreatment QA test were not completely stable, as results of weekly beam‐by‐beam analysis showed some variation. Because dosimetric errors throughout the treatment course were averaged, the overall dosimetric impact to patients was small.
PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr
Keywords: IMRT, dose prediction, step and shoot, dosimetry, QA
Supporting information
Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material
References
- 1. Luo W, Li J, Price RA Jr., et al. Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification using MLC log files and R/V outputs. Med Phys. 2006;33(7):2557–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J et al. Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Sumida I, Yamaguchi H, Kizaki H et al. Quality assurance of MLC leaf position accuracy and relative dose effect at the MLC abutment region using an electronic portal imaging device. J Radiat Res. 2012;53(5):798–806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low DA 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. 2003;30(8):2089–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA. Per‐beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011;38(2):1037–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kruse JJ. On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies. Med Phys. 2010;37(6):2516–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Nelms BE and Simon WE, inventors. Sun Nuclear Corp., assignee . Radiation therapy plan dose perturbation system and method. United States patent 7945022 B2. 2011. May 17.
- 8. Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH‐based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):5477–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Olch AJ. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA. Med Phys. 2012;39(1):81–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Nelms BE and Simon JA. A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007;8(3):76–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Depuydt T, Esch AV, Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2002;62(3):309–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Low DA and Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 2003;30(9):2455–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. ICRU. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon‐beam intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Special considerations regarding absorbed‐dose and dose‐volume prescribing and reporting in IMRT. ICRU Report 83. J ICRU. 2010;10:27–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Pollack A, Hanlon A, Horwitz EM, Feigenberg S, Uzzo RG, Price RA. Radiation therapy dose escalation for prostate cancer: a rationale for IMRT. World J Urol. 2003;21(4):200–08. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Yin Z, Hugtenburg RP, Beddoe AH. Response corrections for solid‐state detectors in megavoltage photon dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(16):3691–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material