Javascript must be enabled to continue!
SU‐GG‐T‐200: Comparison of a Novel Transmission Detector to a Standard Measurement Technique for Patient IMRT Quality Assurance
View through CrossRef
Purpose: A new measurement‐based, pre‐treatment IMRT composite quality assurance (QA) procedure was compared to a standard QA method. The standard QA method consisted of delivering the treatment to a cuboidal IMRT phantom containing dose measuring media. This standard measurement employed Gaf‐chromic film sheets for relative dosimetry and an ion chamber for absolute dosimetry. The new method examined here used a novel transmission detector measurement (IBA Dosimetry) designed for in vivo patient dosimetry. However, before in vivo application, we compare to our standard QA method, which is the focus of this work. Method and Materials: Treatment plans for ten previously‐treated, head and neck IMRT patients were used. All treatment plans were QA'd with the standard method at the treatment beam angles. Measurements with the transmission detector (an array of 1600 IC's) were also performed at the treatment beam angles. The COMPASS software (IBA Dosimetry) converts these 2D‐array measurements to incident fluence, and then forward calculates dose in a patient model (ie. CT data). In this work the patient model was a cuboidal shaped solid‐water IMRT phantom (MedTec). Absolute doses were compared using isocentre location for the COMPASS/planning system, and a low dose gradient point location for the IC/planning system comparison (near isocentre, but not necessarily due to alignment needs during measurement). Results: On average, the standard QA method results for absolute dosimetry were different by 1.4±1.8% compared to the planning system (measured above planning system). On average the transmission detector based QA method results for absolute dosimetry were different by 0.3±1.6% compared to the planning system (measured above planning system). Conclusion: QA results using the COMPASS software with the transmission detector were comparable to the standard QA method.Conflict of Interest: CancerCare Manitoba has a collaborative research agreement with IBA Dosimetry, although there is not direct financial support.
Title: SU‐GG‐T‐200: Comparison of a Novel Transmission Detector to a Standard Measurement Technique for Patient IMRT Quality Assurance
Description:
Purpose: A new measurement‐based, pre‐treatment IMRT composite quality assurance (QA) procedure was compared to a standard QA method.
The standard QA method consisted of delivering the treatment to a cuboidal IMRT phantom containing dose measuring media.
This standard measurement employed Gaf‐chromic film sheets for relative dosimetry and an ion chamber for absolute dosimetry.
The new method examined here used a novel transmission detector measurement (IBA Dosimetry) designed for in vivo patient dosimetry.
However, before in vivo application, we compare to our standard QA method, which is the focus of this work.
Method and Materials: Treatment plans for ten previously‐treated, head and neck IMRT patients were used.
All treatment plans were QA'd with the standard method at the treatment beam angles.
Measurements with the transmission detector (an array of 1600 IC's) were also performed at the treatment beam angles.
The COMPASS software (IBA Dosimetry) converts these 2D‐array measurements to incident fluence, and then forward calculates dose in a patient model (ie.
CT data).
In this work the patient model was a cuboidal shaped solid‐water IMRT phantom (MedTec).
Absolute doses were compared using isocentre location for the COMPASS/planning system, and a low dose gradient point location for the IC/planning system comparison (near isocentre, but not necessarily due to alignment needs during measurement).
Results: On average, the standard QA method results for absolute dosimetry were different by 1.
4±1.
8% compared to the planning system (measured above planning system).
On average the transmission detector based QA method results for absolute dosimetry were different by 0.
3±1.
6% compared to the planning system (measured above planning system).
Conclusion: QA results using the COMPASS software with the transmission detector were comparable to the standard QA method.
Conflict of Interest: CancerCare Manitoba has a collaborative research agreement with IBA Dosimetry, although there is not direct financial support.
Related Results
Dosimetric comparison of 3DCRT and IMRT in radical chemoradiotherapy of squamous cell carcinoma esophagus
Dosimetric comparison of 3DCRT and IMRT in radical chemoradiotherapy of squamous cell carcinoma esophagus
ABSTRACT
Background:
Radical chemoradiation is the standard of treatment for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus and for patien...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Dosimetric comparative study of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT), and ThreeDimensional Conformal Radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in Left breast cancer patients
Dosimetric comparative study of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT), and ThreeDimensional Conformal Radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in Left breast cancer patients
Purpose: To evaluate the difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to the organs at risk
(OAR) by using three different planning methods for the same patient-Vol...
SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
Purpose: This study is to evaluate the difference between two QA IMRT techniques(single‐gantry‐angle composite and patient‐gantry angle) of patient delivery plan. Methods: 7 Head‐a...
SU‐GG‐T‐211: An Independent MU Calculation Program for Dynamic IMRT
SU‐GG‐T‐211: An Independent MU Calculation Program for Dynamic IMRT
Purpose: The performance of an independent monitor unit calculation program is evaluated to verify the monitor unit (MU) for dynamic IMRT fields. The MU calculation program runs on...
Metaheuristic-Based IMRT Optimization for Lung Cancer Treatment under Respiratory Motion
Metaheuristic-Based IMRT Optimization for Lung Cancer Treatment under Respiratory Motion
Introduction: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is a widely adopted cancer treatment technique due to its precision in delivering radiation doses to tumors while minimiz...
Ten-Year Outcomes of IMRT With Chemotherapy Versus IMRT Alone for Stage Ⅱ-Ⅳa Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study
Ten-Year Outcomes of IMRT With Chemotherapy Versus IMRT Alone for Stage Ⅱ-Ⅳa Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study
Abstract
Background
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, ...
Conceptual design report of the MPD Cosmic Ray Detector (MCORD)
Conceptual design report of the MPD Cosmic Ray Detector (MCORD)
Abstract
This report presents a concept of constructing a detector
dedicated for detection of muons observed during measurements
carried out at the MPD (Multi-Pu...

