| 胡俏俏,蒋璠,王美娇,等.瓦里安Portal Dosimetry和PTW 1500矩阵在HalcyonTM治疗计划剂量验证的对比研究[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2019,39(1):58-62.Hu Qiaoqiao,Jiang Fan,Wang Meijiao,et al.A comparative study of dosimetric verification of HalcyonTM treatment plans using Varian Portal Dosimetry and PTW array 1500[J].Chin J Radiol Med Prot,2019,39(1):58-62 |
| 瓦里安Portal Dosimetry和PTW 1500矩阵在HalcyonTM治疗计划剂量验证的对比研究 |
| A comparative study of dosimetric verification of HalcyonTM treatment plans using Varian Portal Dosimetry and PTW array 1500 |
| 投稿时间：2018-06-06 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2019.01.011 |
| 中文关键词: HalcyonTM加速器 剂量 γ 2D分析 电子射野影像系统 |
| 英文关键词:HalcyonTM accelerator Dose γ 2D analysis Electronic portal imaging device |
| 基金项目:北京市自然科学基金（1174016、7172048、1184014）；首都卫生发展科研专项（首发2018-4-1027）；四川省科技厅项目（2018HH0099） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3975 |
| 全文下载次数: 1982 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较Portal Dosimetry（PD）和PTW OCTAVIUS 1500矩阵结合Octagonal模体（Oct1500）两种剂量验证方式在HalcyonTM加速器治疗计划剂量验证中的表现。方法 选取在HalcyonTM做临床试验的20例入组患者，包括22个IMRT/VMAT治疗计划和74个辐射野，分别采用两种验证方式和多种γ 2D评估策略进行剂量验证，对比验证方式及评估策略之间的验证结果，为HalcyonTM治疗计划验证方式和评价策略的选择提供数据支持。结果 Oct1500方式74个辐射野和22个治疗计划γ 2D通过率分别为95.26±3.59、95.01±3.62（局部剂量）、99.05±1.35、98.57±1.96（最大剂量），两种评估策略之间差异有统计学意义（Z=-7.220、-4.108，P<0.05）；PD方式为84.11±1.35（1 mm/1%）、99.07±1.35（2 mm/2%）、99.86±1.35（3 mm/3%），3种评估策略之间差异有统计学意义（Z=-7.475、-7.475、-6.906，P<0.05）；74个辐射野全局剂量、3 mm/3%的评价策略两种验证方式之间差异有统计学意义（Z=-5.072，P<0.05）。结论 两种剂量验证方式均可用于HalcyonTM治疗计划剂量验证；PD方式在验证效率和由空间分辨率所致的剂量验证精度方面优于Oct1500。推荐使用2 mm/2%（PD）和全局剂量、3 mm/3%（Oct1500）评估策略。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare two pretreatment plan QA methods for HalcyonTM accelerator using Portal Dosimetry (PD), and PTW OCTAVIUS 1500 detector array + Octagonal phantom (Oct 1500) respectively.Methods Parallel measurement-based pretreatment QA using two methods was performed for 22 IMRT/VMAT plans (74 fields) that have been used to treat 20 patients recruited in the Halcyon clinical trial. Several γ 2D comparisons were also applied to provide guidelines for Halcyon planning QA.Results Using Oct1500 method, the γ 2D passing rates for 74 fields in 22 Plans were 95.26±3.59, 95.01±3.62 (Local Dose), 99.05±1.35, 98.57±1.96 (Max Dose) respectively. Two-related samples non-parametric tests suggested that the differences between the evaluation criteria were of statistical significance (Z=-7.220, -4.108, P<0.05). For PD method, the γ 2D passing rates were 84.11%±1.35% (1 mm/1%), 99.07%±1.35% (2 mm/2%), and 99.86%±1.35% (3 mm/3%). Two-related samples non-parametric tests suggested that the differences between evaluation criteria of PD method were statistically significant (Z=-7.475, -7.475, -6.906, P<0.05). For 74 fields and max dose, 3 mm/3% evaluation criteria, two-related samples non-parametric tests suggested that the differences between PD and Oct1500 method were statistically significant (Z=-5.072, P<0.05).Conclusions Both methods can be used for Halcyon pretreatment plan QA. PD is superior to Oct1500 with respect to efficiency and spatial resolution-induced verification accuracy. The criteria of 2 mm/2% for PD, and Max Dose/3 mm/3% for Oct1500 was suggested. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |