In vivo dosimetry in external beam radiotherapy

The dosimetric consequences of errors in patient setup or beam delivery and anatomical changes are not readily known. A new product, PerFRACTION (Sun Nuclear Corporation), is designed to identify these errors by comparing the exit dose image measured on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) from each field of each fraction to those from baseline fraction images. This work investigates the sensitivity of PerFRACTION to detect the deviation caused by these errors in a variety of realistic scenarios. Integrated EPID images were acquired in clinical mode and saved in ARIA. PerFRACTION automatically pulled the images into its database and performed the user‐defined comparison. We induced errors of 1 mm and greater in jaw, multileaf collimator (MLC), and couch position, 1° and greater in collimation rotation (patient yaw), 0.5–1.5% in machine output, rail position, and setup errors of 1–2 mm shifts and 0.5–1° roll rotation. The planning techniques included static, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and VMAT fields. Rectangular solid water phantom or anthropomorphic head phantom were used in the beam path in the delivery of some fields. PerFRACTION detected position errors of the jaws, MLC, and couch with an accuracy of better than 0.4 mm, and 0.5° for collimator rotation error and detected the machine output error within 0.2%. The rail position error resulted in PerFRACTION detected dose deviations up to 8% and 3% in open field and VMAT field delivery, respectively. PerFRACTION detected induced errors in IMRT fields within 2.2% of the gamma passing rate using an independent conventional analysis. Using an anthropomorphic phantom, setup errors as small as 1 mm and 0.5° were detected. Our work demonstrates that PerFRACTION, using integrated EPID image, is sensitive enough to identify positional, angular, and dosimetric errors.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity study of an automated system for daily patient QA using EPID exit dose images

Zhuang

Olch

2018

“…Nonetheless, there are many arguments in favor of in vivo dosimetry (IVD), that is, a method to measure the dose deposited in the patient during treatment, as an auxiliary optimization and safety procedure. IVD can identify errors in dose calculation, data transfer, patient setup, and dose delivery, and may be used as a trigger for adaptive radiotherapy in cases of changing patient anatomy 1 , 2 , 3 . More importantly, most RT errors which have led to serious patient injury or death 4 , 5 , 6 could have been avoided or reduced with IVD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cine‐mode EPID imaging has found application in the realm of gantry motion verification for dynamic RT techniques 23 , 24 and as a pretreatment dose verification tool, 8 , 25 but real‐time EPID IVD is not current clinical practice. For further applications of portal imaging IVD the reader is referred to comprehensive review papers available in literature 2 , 11 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐dimensional in vivo dose verification using portal imaging and correlation ratios

Peca

Brown

2014

The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has the potential to be used for in vivo dosimetry during radiation therapy as an additional dose delivery check. In this study we have extended a method developed by A. Piermattei and colleagues in 2006 that made use of EPID transit images (acquired during treatment) to calculate dose in the isocenter point. The extension allows calculation of two‐dimensional dose maps of the entire radiation field at the depth of isocenter. We quantified the variability of the ratio of EPID signal to dose in the isocenter plane in Solid Water phantoms of various thicknesses and with various field sizes, and designed a field edge dose calculation correction. To validate the method, we designed three realistic conventional radiation therapy treatment plans on a thorax and head anthropomorphic phantom (whole brain, brain primary, lung tumor). Using CT data, EPID transit images, EPID signal‐to‐dose correlation, and our edge correction, we calculated dose in the isocenter plane and compared it with the treatment planning system's prediction. Gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm) showed good agreement (Pγ<1 ≥ 96.5%) for all fields of the whole brain and brain primary plans. In the presence of lung, however, our algorithm overestimated dose by 7%–9%. This 2D EPID‐based in vivo dosimetry method can be used for posttreatment dose verification, thereby improving the safety and quality of patient treatments. With future work, it may be extended to measure dose in real time and to prevent harmful delivery errors.PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.T‐

“…However, due to the increase in technical complexity and dose escalation, the risk of secondary effects also rises. In vivo dosimetry (IVD) is now widely recommended to avoid major treatment errors 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and is even mandatory in several countries 9 , 10 . It is the ultimate step to secure the treatment before a significant portion of the total dose is already given.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EPID based in vivo dosimetry system: clinical experience and results

Celi

Costa

Wessels

et al. 2016

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