| Yang Ruijie,Zhang Xile,Liu Lu,Wang Junjie.Analysis of 2 010 patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy dosimetric verification results[J].Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection,2016,36(12):917-921 |
| Analysis of 2 010 patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy dosimetric verification results |
| Received:July 24, 2016 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2016.12.008 |
| KeyWords:IMRT VMAT Quality assurance Dosimetric verification γ pass rate |
| FundProject:国家自然科学基金（81071237） |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | Yang Ruijie | Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China | | Zhang Xile | Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China | | Liu Lu | Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China | | Wang Junjie | Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China |
|
| Hits: 3505 |
| Download times: 2243 |
| Abstract:: |
| Objective To analyze the patient-specific dosimetric verification results of 2 010 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans from different treatment sites, and provide a reference for improving the patient-specific dosimetric verification program.Methods A total of 2 010 (965 IMRT and 1 045 VMAT) patient-specific dosimetric verification results were reviewed for isocenter dose difference and percentage of pixels passing planar dose γ analysis. All plans were designed with Eclipse planning system and delivered with Trilogy linear accelerator from February 2012 to February 2016. The dosimetric verification was performed with MatriXX array together with Multicube phantom. Point dose difference larger than ±3% and/or γ pass rate (3%/3 mm) less than 90% was defined as plan failure. Additional analysis was conducted for trends in difference of pass rates with treatment site and delivery technique (IMRT vs. VMAT). Results The mean isocenter difference between measured and calculated doses was -0.3%±2.4% for 2 010 plans. The mean percentage of pixels passing the γ criteria was 97.9%±3.4%. 88.2% and 96.7% of plans passed the point and planar dose verification, respectively. The γ pass rate was different among the treatment sites (F=3.09, P<0.05). The pass rate of point and planar dose difference was different among the treatment sites(χ2=40.93, 39.15, P<0.05). There was no difference between IMRT and VMAT plans for both point dose and planar dose evaluation (P>0.05). Conclusions Most of IMRT and VMAT plans passed the tolerance criteria of ±3% and 90% for point and planar dose verification with MatriXX together with Multicube phantom, respectively. Both point and planar dose verification results varied among treatment sites, whereas no significant difference was found between IMRT and VMAT. |
| HTML View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
