Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments

Gordon M. Mancuso, Jonas D. Fontenot, John P. Gibbons, Brent Parker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. Methods: Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. Results: Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. Conclusions: These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4378-4385
Number of pages8
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2012

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • action levels
  • intensity modulated radiation therapy
  • quality assurance
  • volumetric modulated arc therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments. / Mancuso, Gordon M.; Fontenot, Jonas D.; Gibbons, John P.; Parker, Brent.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 7, 07.2012, p. 4378-4385.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7adbb6695f8c4045b74be4384b1026ed,
title = "Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments",
abstract = "Purpose: To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. Methods: Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. Results: Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. Conclusions: These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.",
keywords = "action levels, intensity modulated radiation therapy, quality assurance, volumetric modulated arc therapy",
author = "Mancuso, {Gordon M.} and Fontenot, {Jonas D.} and Gibbons, {John P.} and Brent Parker",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1118/1.4729738",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "4378--4385",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments

AU - Mancuso, Gordon M.

AU - Fontenot, Jonas D.

AU - Gibbons, John P.

AU - Parker, Brent

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - Purpose: To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. Methods: Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. Results: Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. Conclusions: These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.

AB - Purpose: To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. Methods: Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. Results: Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. Conclusions: These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.

KW - action levels

KW - intensity modulated radiation therapy

KW - quality assurance

KW - volumetric modulated arc therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864240475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864240475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4729738

DO - 10.1118/1.4729738

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 4378

EP - 4385

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 7

ER -