Dose distribution verifications of IMRT for NPC

Abstract

In order to explore a dose distribution verification procedure of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and establish its evaluation criteria, we performed 35 two-dimensional (2D) patient-specific IMRT verifications over the year 2006. The percent of pixels passing γ and the normalized agreement test (NAT) index were mainly used to represent the agreement between the measured and computed dose distributions with three criteria (2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/3 mm) as recommended in the literature. The results were that all cases passed through verifications with three criteria except that the NAT index of one case was beyond the limitation, and the three tolerance levels of 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/3 mm produced similar clinical verification results but led to different percent of pixels passing γ and NAT index. Our data showed that the percent of pixels passing γ and the NAT index were complementary to evaluate future IMRT verifications as two significant metrics. Due to the influence of the noise and the trait of the software, we considered an IMRT plan as acceptable in case of the percent of pixels passing γ >95% and the NAT index <5 with the 5%/3 mm criteria for IMRT patient-specific quality assurance (QA).

Keywords

dose distribution / dose verification / intensity modulated radiation therapy

References

[1] AgazaryanN., SolbergT.D., DeMarcoJ.J.. Patient specific quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2003, 4(1): 40-50

[2] Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group.. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2001, 51(4): 880-914

[3] DengX.W., HuangS.M., ZhongN.S., et al.. Dosimetry verification and quality assurance test of IMRT. Chin J Cancer (Chinese), 2001, 20(10): 1092-1094

[4] LiG.F., ZhuM.S., WuQ.H., et al.. Clinical quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Chin J Radiat Oncol (Chinese), 2002, 11(3): 190-193

[5] LowD.A., HarmsW.B., MuticS., et al.. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys, 1998, 25(?): 656-661

[6] LowD.A., DempseyJ.F., VenkatesanR., et al.. Evaluation of polymer gels and MRI as a 3-D dosimeter for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys, 1999, 26(8): 1542-1551

[7] BjorkP., KnoosT., NilssonP.. Comparative dosimetry of diode and diamond detectors in electron beams for intra-operative radiation therapy. Med Phys, 2000, 27(11): 2580-2588

[8] JuS.G., AhnY.C., HuhS.J., et al.. Film dosimetry for intensity modulated radiation therapy: dosimetric evaluation. Med Phys, 2002, 29(3): 351-355

[9] BuccioliniM., BuonamiciF.B., CasatiM.. Verification of IMRT fields by film dosimetry. Med Phys, 2004, 31(1): 161-168

[10] ChildressN.L., SalehpourM., DongL., et al.. Dosimetric accuracy of Kodak EDR2 film for IMRT verifications. Med Phys, 2005, 32(2): 539-548

[11] ICRU Report 50.. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. Med Phys, 1994, 21(6): 833-834

[12] TG Report 69.. Radiographic film for megavoltage beam dosimetry. Med Phys, 2007, 34(6): 2228-2258

[13] ChildressN.L., DongL., RosenI.I.. Rapid radiographic film calibration for IMRT verification using automated MLC field. Med Phys, 2002, 29(10): 2384-2390

[14] ChildressN.L., RosenI.I.. Effect of processing time delay on the dose response of Kodak EDR2 film. Med Phys, 2004, 31(8): 2284-2288

[15] LowD.A., DempseyJ.F.. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys, 2003, 30(9): 2455-2464

[16] ChildressN.L., RosenI.I.. The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2003, 56(5): 1464-1479

[17] ChildressN.L., WhiteR.A., BlochC., et al.. Retrospective analysis of 2D patient-specific IMRT verifications. Med Phys, 2005, 32(4): 838-850

[18] Van DykJ., BarnettR.B., CyglerJ.E., et al.. Commissioning and QA of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1993, 26(2): 261-273

[19] DepuydtT., Van EschA., HuyskensD.P.. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol, 2002, 62(2): 309-319

[20] WinklerP., ZurlB., GussH., et al.. Performance analysis of a film dosimetric quality assurance procedure for IMRT with regard to the employment of quantitative evaluation methods. Phys Med Biol, 2005, 50(4): 643-654