Mandatory in several countries, in vivo dosimetry has been recognized as one of the next milestones in radiation oncology. Our department has implemented clinically an EPID based in vivo dosimetry system, EPIgray, by DOSISOFT S.A., since 2006. An analysis of the measurements per linac and energy over a two‐year period was performed, which included a more detailed examination per technique and treatment site over a six‐month period. A comparison of the treatment planning system doses and the doses estimated by EPIgray shows a mean of the differences of 1.9% (±5.2%) for the two‐year period. The 3D conformal treatment plans had a mean dose difference of 2.0% (±4.9%), while for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy treatments the mean dose difference was −3.0 (±5.3%) and −2.5 (±5.2%), respectively. In addition, root cause analyses were conducted on the in vivo dosimetry measurements of two breast cancer treatment techniques, as well as prostate treatments with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. During the breast study, the dose differences of breast treatments in supine position were correlated to patient setup and EPID positioning errors. Based on these observations, an automatic image shift correction algorithm is developed by DOSIsoft S.A. The prostate study revealed that beams and arcs with out‐of‐tolerance in vivo dosimetry results tend to have more complex modulation and a lower exposure of the points of interest. The statistical studies indicate that in vivo dosimetry with EPIgray has been successfully implemented for classical and complex techniques in clinical routine at our institution. The additional breast and prostate studies exhibit the prospects of EPIgray as an easy supplementary quality assurance tool. The validation, the automatization, and the reduction of false‐positive results represent an important step toward adaptive radiotherapy with EPIgray.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: At our Institute some measured parameters for daily quality assurance (DQA) of dynamic arc therapy plans showed an unexpected behavior, therefore an investigation of the influence of the magnitude of modulation was conducted. Methods: In our clinical practice all DQAs of dynamic arc therapy plans are measured and analyzed prior to treatments using commercial software. For this study these plans were additionally exported to our in‐house software written in MATLAB. The developed software extracted the leaf position, gantry angle, cumulative meterset weight of each control point (CP) and the total number of Monitor Units (MU) of each arc. Based on this information we calculated the leaf travel distance, irradiated segment area, number of MUs and dose rate for each CP. These data allowed us to calculate the modulation indexes (MI) of the plans, applying five different definitions of MI. The results were then correlated to the results of our DQA measurements. To validate the software, additional plans of known MIs were created and analyzed. For confirmation, the calculated parameters were compared to the segmented treatment table (STT) coming from the treatment planning system. Results: All calculated CP‐parameters matched the STT by 99% or better. For linac 1, the comparison of the MI evaluation and the DQA results showed a slight tendency: 91.3% failed DQA plans had a MI lower than the average value. For this definition we consider that the lower the MI the higher the modulation. The results of the linac 2 present no significant relevance due to the low sample sizes for each DQA software. Conclusion: Available data and given definitions of the modulation index do not bring conclusive results; one cannot find a clear and distinct correlation with the failure of the DQA. The ongoing analysis with an increased sample size might lead to another conclusion.

No abstract