SU‐DD‐A1‐03: IMRT Quality Assurance: Dosimetric Assessment of Three Current Methods

Joseph A. Hauger, M. Beach, D. Diez, D. Duggan, J. Durant, G. Ding, C. Coffey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare traditional IMRT quality assurance using film dosimetry and small volume ionization chamber measurements with two new commercial products, the Wellhofer® MatriXX ionization chamber array and Varian® Portal Dosimetry. Available analysis software, hardware requirements and approximate operator times for data preparation, measurement and analysis will also be examined. Method and Materials: Fluence patterns from several 6X and 18X IMRT treatment plans for pelvis and head and neck radiotherapy patients were measured using radiographic film, the MatriXX array, and the Portal Dosimetry array. In each case the fluence pattern predicted by the treatment planning system was compared to the measured fluence pattern using ordinary γ‐analysis. Absolute dose at a point in a low‐gradient region of the fluence was also measured in the solid water phantom with an ionization chamber and compared to the dose prediction of the TPS. The absolute dose measured at the same point by the MatriXX array was also compared. Results: The absolute dose measurements made in a region of low‐gradient using an ionization chamber were, on the average, within 3% of the TPS predicted dose. The absolute dose measurements made using the MatriXX were, on the average, within 5% of the predicted dose. The ion chamber and MatriXX agreed to within 3%. An average of about 4% of pixels failed an ordinary γ‐analysis using 5% dose agreement and 3mm DTA criteria for both film and MatriXX measurements. A smaller percentage of pixels measured using Portal Dosimetry failed. The time spent preparing the data was comparable for all methods. Data measurement and analysis times were significantly reduced using the MatriXX and Portal Dosimeter procedures. Conclusions: This work indicates significant time savings for the new methods. In addition, the MatriXX system measures absolute dose at each chamber position.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Film Dosimetry
X-Ray Film
Pelvis
Neck
Radiotherapy
Software
Head
Ions
Water
Therapeutics
Radiation Dosimeters

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐DD‐A1‐03 : IMRT Quality Assurance: Dosimetric Assessment of Three Current Methods. / Hauger, Joseph A.; Beach, M.; Diez, D.; Duggan, D.; Durant, J.; Ding, G.; Coffey, C.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 01.01.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hauger, Joseph A. ; Beach, M. ; Diez, D. ; Duggan, D. ; Durant, J. ; Ding, G. ; Coffey, C. / SU‐DD‐A1‐03 : IMRT Quality Assurance: Dosimetric Assessment of Three Current Methods. In: Medical Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 33, No. 6.
@article{e3f7992a31c0443a93e2d318a63f4bfe,
title = "SU‐DD‐A1‐03: IMRT Quality Assurance: Dosimetric Assessment of Three Current Methods",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare traditional IMRT quality assurance using film dosimetry and small volume ionization chamber measurements with two new commercial products, the Wellhofer{\circledR} MatriXX ionization chamber array and Varian{\circledR} Portal Dosimetry. Available analysis software, hardware requirements and approximate operator times for data preparation, measurement and analysis will also be examined. Method and Materials: Fluence patterns from several 6X and 18X IMRT treatment plans for pelvis and head and neck radiotherapy patients were measured using radiographic film, the MatriXX array, and the Portal Dosimetry array. In each case the fluence pattern predicted by the treatment planning system was compared to the measured fluence pattern using ordinary γ‐analysis. Absolute dose at a point in a low‐gradient region of the fluence was also measured in the solid water phantom with an ionization chamber and compared to the dose prediction of the TPS. The absolute dose measured at the same point by the MatriXX array was also compared. Results: The absolute dose measurements made in a region of low‐gradient using an ionization chamber were, on the average, within 3{\%} of the TPS predicted dose. The absolute dose measurements made using the MatriXX were, on the average, within 5{\%} of the predicted dose. The ion chamber and MatriXX agreed to within 3{\%}. An average of about 4{\%} of pixels failed an ordinary γ‐analysis using 5{\%} dose agreement and 3mm DTA criteria for both film and MatriXX measurements. A smaller percentage of pixels measured using Portal Dosimetry failed. The time spent preparing the data was comparable for all methods. Data measurement and analysis times were significantly reduced using the MatriXX and Portal Dosimeter procedures. Conclusions: This work indicates significant time savings for the new methods. In addition, the MatriXX system measures absolute dose at each chamber position.",
author = "Hauger, {Joseph A.} and M. Beach and D. Diez and D. Duggan and J. Durant and G. Ding and C. Coffey",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.2240131",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐DD‐A1‐03

T2 - IMRT Quality Assurance: Dosimetric Assessment of Three Current Methods

AU - Hauger, Joseph A.

AU - Beach, M.

AU - Diez, D.

AU - Duggan, D.

AU - Durant, J.

AU - Ding, G.

AU - Coffey, C.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare traditional IMRT quality assurance using film dosimetry and small volume ionization chamber measurements with two new commercial products, the Wellhofer® MatriXX ionization chamber array and Varian® Portal Dosimetry. Available analysis software, hardware requirements and approximate operator times for data preparation, measurement and analysis will also be examined. Method and Materials: Fluence patterns from several 6X and 18X IMRT treatment plans for pelvis and head and neck radiotherapy patients were measured using radiographic film, the MatriXX array, and the Portal Dosimetry array. In each case the fluence pattern predicted by the treatment planning system was compared to the measured fluence pattern using ordinary γ‐analysis. Absolute dose at a point in a low‐gradient region of the fluence was also measured in the solid water phantom with an ionization chamber and compared to the dose prediction of the TPS. The absolute dose measured at the same point by the MatriXX array was also compared. Results: The absolute dose measurements made in a region of low‐gradient using an ionization chamber were, on the average, within 3% of the TPS predicted dose. The absolute dose measurements made using the MatriXX were, on the average, within 5% of the predicted dose. The ion chamber and MatriXX agreed to within 3%. An average of about 4% of pixels failed an ordinary γ‐analysis using 5% dose agreement and 3mm DTA criteria for both film and MatriXX measurements. A smaller percentage of pixels measured using Portal Dosimetry failed. The time spent preparing the data was comparable for all methods. Data measurement and analysis times were significantly reduced using the MatriXX and Portal Dosimeter procedures. Conclusions: This work indicates significant time savings for the new methods. In addition, the MatriXX system measures absolute dose at each chamber position.

AB - Purpose: To compare traditional IMRT quality assurance using film dosimetry and small volume ionization chamber measurements with two new commercial products, the Wellhofer® MatriXX ionization chamber array and Varian® Portal Dosimetry. Available analysis software, hardware requirements and approximate operator times for data preparation, measurement and analysis will also be examined. Method and Materials: Fluence patterns from several 6X and 18X IMRT treatment plans for pelvis and head and neck radiotherapy patients were measured using radiographic film, the MatriXX array, and the Portal Dosimetry array. In each case the fluence pattern predicted by the treatment planning system was compared to the measured fluence pattern using ordinary γ‐analysis. Absolute dose at a point in a low‐gradient region of the fluence was also measured in the solid water phantom with an ionization chamber and compared to the dose prediction of the TPS. The absolute dose measured at the same point by the MatriXX array was also compared. Results: The absolute dose measurements made in a region of low‐gradient using an ionization chamber were, on the average, within 3% of the TPS predicted dose. The absolute dose measurements made using the MatriXX were, on the average, within 5% of the predicted dose. The ion chamber and MatriXX agreed to within 3%. An average of about 4% of pixels failed an ordinary γ‐analysis using 5% dose agreement and 3mm DTA criteria for both film and MatriXX measurements. A smaller percentage of pixels measured using Portal Dosimetry failed. The time spent preparing the data was comparable for all methods. Data measurement and analysis times were significantly reduced using the MatriXX and Portal Dosimeter procedures. Conclusions: This work indicates significant time savings for the new methods. In addition, the MatriXX system measures absolute dose at each chamber position.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024826525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024826525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2240131

DO - 10.1118/1.2240131

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024826525

VL - 33

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -