Dosimetric verification for intensity-modulated arc therapy plans by use of 2D diode array, radiochromic film and radiosensitive polymer gel

• Published in: Journal of radiation research Vol. 55; no. 3; pp. 541 - 552
• Main Authors: Hayashi, Naoki, Malmin, Ryan L., Watanabe, Yoichi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Oxford University Press 01.05.2014
• Subjects: Arrays; Care and treatment; Detection equipment; Diodes; Electronic components; Electronics, Medical - instrumentation; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure Analysis; Gels - radiation effects; Humans; Male; Mathematical analysis; Oncology; Patients; Polymer industry; Polymers - radiation effects; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Radiometry - instrumentation; Radiometry - methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - instrumentation; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Semiconductors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Therapy; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation; Three dimensional; Two dimensional; X-Ray Film; IMAT; 2D array detector; 3D dose measurement; radiosensitive polymer gel; radiochromic films; dosimetric verification
• ISSN: 0449-3060; 1349-9157
• DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrt139

Several tools are used for the dosimetric verification of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) treatment delivery. However, limited information is available for composite on-line evaluation of these tools. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric verification of IMAT treatment plans using a 2D diode array detector (2D array), radiochromic film (RCF) and radiosensitive polymer gel dosimeter (RPGD). The specific verification plans were created for IMAT for two prostate cancer patients by use of the clinical treatment plans. Accordingly, the IMAT deliveries were performed with the 2D array on a gantry-mounting device, RCF in a cylindrical acrylic phantom, and the RPGD in two cylindrical phantoms. After the irradiation, the planar dose distributions from the 2D array and the RCFs, and the 3D dose distributions from the RPGD measurements were compared with the calculated dose distributions using the gamma analysis method (3% dose difference and 3-mm distance-to-agreement criterion), dose-dependent dose difference diagrams, dose difference histograms, and isodose distributions. The gamma passing rates of 2D array, RCFs and RPGD for one patient were 99.5%, 96.5% and 93.7%, respectively; the corresponding values for the second patient were 97.5%, 92.6% and 92.9%. Mean percentage differences between the RPGD measured and calculated doses in 3D volumes containing PTVs were –0.29 ± 7.1% and 0.97 ± 7.6% for the two patients, respectively. In conclusion, IMAT prostate plans can be delivered with high accuracy, although the 3D measurements indicated less satisfactory agreement with the treatment plans, mainly due to the dosimetric inaccuracy in low-dose regions of the RPGD measurements.