TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of the quality assurance of four dosimetric tools for intensity modulated radiation therapy
AU - Son, Jaeman
AU - Baek, Taesung
AU - Lee, Boram
AU - Shin, Dongho
AU - Park, Sung Yong
AU - Park, Jeonghoon
AU - Lim, Young Kyung
AU - Lee, Se Byeong
AU - Kim, Jooyoung
AU - Yoon, Myonggeun
PY - 2015/9/1
Y1 - 2015/9/1
N2 - Background. This study was designed to compare the quality assurance (QA) results of four dosimetric tools used for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to suggest universal criteria for the passing rate in QA, irrespective of the dosimetric tool used. Materials and methods. Thirty fields of IMRT plans from five patients were selected, followed by irradiation onto radiochromic film, a diode array (Mapcheck), an ion chamber array (MatriXX) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for patient-specific QA. The measured doses from the four dosimetric tools were compared with the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. The passing rates of the four dosimetric tools were calculated using the gamma index method, using as criteria a dose difference of 3% and a distance-to-agreement of 3 mm. Results. The QA results based on Mapcheck, MatriXX and EPID showed good agreement, with average passing rates of 99.61%, 99.04% and 99.29%, respectively. However, the average passing rate based on film measurement was significantly lower, 95.88%. The average uncertainty (1 standard deviation) of passing rates for 6 intensity modulated fields was around 0.31 for film measurement, larger than those of the other three dosimetric tools. Conclusions. QA results and consistencies depend on the choice of dosimetric tool. Universal passing rates should depend on the normalization or inter-comparisons of dosimetric tools if more than one dosimetric tool is used for patient specific QA.
AB - Background. This study was designed to compare the quality assurance (QA) results of four dosimetric tools used for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to suggest universal criteria for the passing rate in QA, irrespective of the dosimetric tool used. Materials and methods. Thirty fields of IMRT plans from five patients were selected, followed by irradiation onto radiochromic film, a diode array (Mapcheck), an ion chamber array (MatriXX) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for patient-specific QA. The measured doses from the four dosimetric tools were compared with the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. The passing rates of the four dosimetric tools were calculated using the gamma index method, using as criteria a dose difference of 3% and a distance-to-agreement of 3 mm. Results. The QA results based on Mapcheck, MatriXX and EPID showed good agreement, with average passing rates of 99.61%, 99.04% and 99.29%, respectively. However, the average passing rate based on film measurement was significantly lower, 95.88%. The average uncertainty (1 standard deviation) of passing rates for 6 intensity modulated fields was around 0.31 for film measurement, larger than those of the other three dosimetric tools. Conclusions. QA results and consistencies depend on the choice of dosimetric tool. Universal passing rates should depend on the normalization or inter-comparisons of dosimetric tools if more than one dosimetric tool is used for patient specific QA.
KW - dosimetric tool
KW - gamma index
KW - intensity modulated radiation therapy
KW - quality assurance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940650821&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940650821&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/raon-2015-0021
DO - 10.1515/raon-2015-0021
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84940650821
VL - 49
SP - 307
EP - 313
JO - Radiology and Oncology
JF - Radiology and Oncology
SN - 1318-2099
IS - 3
ER -