Dose Verification for Linac-Based Stereotactic Radiosurgery planned at Different Prescription Isodose Levels Using Delta4 Phantom+
Main Article Content
Keywords
Stereotactic radiosurgery, Prescription isodose, Treatment plans, Delta4 Phantom+, Gamma-index
Abstract
Background: Linear accelerator (LINAC)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plans and their treatment are complex techniques that require a comprehensive quality assurance program before they are clinically implemented. To cope with this intricacy, clinics must comprehensively validate treatment plans to deliver precise doses and assure patients. The study aimed to verify the treatment planning dose to the dose delivered at the LINAC during the SRS treatment planned at different prescription isodoses with the new wireless Delta4 Phantom+.
Materials and Methods: Clinically accepted volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) SRS plans made with the Stereotactic End-to-End Verification (STEEV) anthropomorphic phantom were created with six different prescription isodose level using 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam. All these VMAT SRS plans were replicated on the Delta4phantom+ and delivered with Varian Truebeam LINAC. The planned and delivered dose showed excellent correlation, and this was evaluated using distance to agreement (2 mm), dose deviation (2%), and gamma-index passing rate.
Results: The results showed that the calculated treatment planning system (TPS) dose and the measurement with the delta4 plus phantom were in excellent accord. The minimum gamma pass rate was 99.6% and the maximum 100%. The gamma passing rate above 95% for all plans and dose goals were achieved.
Conclusion: The verification with the Delta4 Phantom+ measurement depicted an excellent correlation with the dose of the SRS treatment plans for the different prescription isodose levels. The wireless Delta 4Phantom+ device is precise and consistent. It is a quickly set-up device, suitable for SRS treatment verification and allows for real-time measurement. However, we do recommend a stricter passing rate for VMAT SRS Plans.
Downloads
Abstract 575 | PDF Downloads 111
References
2. Korreman, S., Medin, J., Kjær-Kristoffersen, F. Do-simetric verification of RapidArc treatment deliv-ery. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(2):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802287116.
3. Padilla, L. and Palta, J.R. Overview of Technologies for SRS and SBRT Delivery. In Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT); Heron, D.E. and Huq, M.S. eds. Springer: Berlin, Germany; 2018, pp. 73–101.
4. Hellerbach, A., Eichner, M., Rueß, D., et al. Impact of pre-scription isodose level and collimator selection on dose homogeneity and plan quality in robotic radiosurgery. Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2022;198(5):484–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-021-01872-4.
5. Kim, J., Park, S.Y., Kim, H.J., et al. The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-167.
6. James, S., Al-Basheer, A., Elder, E., et al. Evaluation of commercial devices for patient specific QA of ste-reotactic radiotherapy plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24(8):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14009.
7. Solberg, T.D., Balter, J.M., Benedict, S.H., et al. Quality and safety considerations in stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy: Executive summary. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2(1):2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. prro.2011.06.014.
8. Xia, Y.Q., Adamson, J., Zlateva, Y., et al. Physics investi-gation Application of TG-218 action limits to SRS and SBRT pre-treatment patient specific QA. J Radiosurgery SBRT. 2020;7(2):135–147.
9. Loo, M., Clavier, J.B., Khalifa, J.A., et al. Dose-response effect and dose-toxicity on stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: A review. Cancers. 2021;13(23):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13236086.
10. Milano, M.T., Grimm, J., Niemierko, A., et al. Single- and Multifraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery Dose/Volume Tolerances of the Brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(1):68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.013.
11. Huang, Z., Qiao, J., Yang, C., et al. Quality Assurance for Small-Field VMAT SRS and Conventional-Field IMRT Using the Exradin W1 Scintillator. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2021;20(270):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338211036542.
12. Ahmed, S., Zhang, G., Moros, E.G., et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the high-resolution diode array for SRS dosimetry. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(10):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12696.
13. Stepanek, C.J., Haynes, J.A., Fletcher, S. Evaluation of a complementary metal oxide semiconductor detector as a tool for stereotactic body radiotherapy plan quality assurance. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol J. 2023;25(100418). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2023.100418.
14. Koper, T., Kowalik, A., Adamczyk, S. The semiconduc-tor diode detector response as a function of field size and beam angle of high-energy photons. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2017;22(3):193–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2016.12.004.
15. Atuwo- Ampoh, D.V., Manson, E.N., Schandorf, C., et al. In Vivo Dosimetry Using a Flat Surface Sun Nuclear Cor-poration Diode in 60 co Beams for Some Radiotherapy Treatments in Ghana. Iran J Med Phys. 2019;16:329–335. https://doi.org/10.22038/ijmp.2018.29705.1324.
16. Delta4 Phantom+: The Fastest and most accurate 4D verification system. Available online: https://delta4fam-ily.com/products/measurement-phantoms/phantom/.
17. Delta4 Phantom+ wireless Phantom. Available online: https://pdf.medicalexpo.com/pdf/scandidos/delta-4-phantom-wireless-phantom/101140-157661.html.
18. Dutta, B., Goswami, S., Moran, S., et al. Commissioning and performance evaluation of varian truebeam linear accelerator. J Radiat Med Trop. 2023;4(1):25. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrmt.jrmt_11_22.
19. Low, D.A. Gamma dose distribution evaluation tool.J Phys Conf Ser. 2010;250:349–359. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/250/1/012071.
20. Song, J.H., Kim, M.J., Park, S.H., et al. Gamma analysis dependence on specified low-dose thresholds for VMAT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(6):263–272. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5696.
21. Srivastava, R.P. and De Wagter, C. Clinical experience using Delta 4 phantom for pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance in modern radiotherapy. J Radiother Pract. 2019;18(2):210–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396918000572.
22. Sasaki, M., Sugimoto, W., Ikushima, H. Simplification of head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy patient-specific quality assurance, using a Delta4 PT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020;25(5):793–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2020.07.004.
23. Das, S., Kharade, V., Pandey, V.P., et al. Gamma Index Analysis as a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience. Cureus. 2022;14(10):e30885. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30885.
24. Li, H., Dong, L., Zhang, L.F., et al. Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance methoda. Med Phys. 2011;38(12):6730–6741. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3659707.
25. Nelms, B.E., Zhen, H., Toḿ, W.A. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011;38(2):1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657.
26. Sadagopan, R., Bencomo, J.A., Martin, R.L., et al. Characterization and clinical evaluation of a novel IMRT quality assurance system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(2):104–119. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp. v10i2.2928.
27. Bedford, J.L., Lee, Y.K., Wai, P., et al. Warrington AP. Evaluation of the Delta 4 phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(9):167–176. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/N04.
28. Desai, V., Bayouth, J., Smilowitz, J., et al. A clinical validation of the MR-compatible Delta4 QA system in a 0.35 tesla MR linear accelerator. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(4):82–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13216.
29. Woon, W., Ravindran, P.B., Ekanayake, P., et al. A study on the effect of detector resolution on gamma index passing rate for VMAT and IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(2):230–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12285.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author(s) must obtain all parties consent [co-author(s), others if applicable] and submit the acceptance of Copyright Agreement with their paper. Written permission must be obtained by the author for material that has been published in copyrighted material; this includes tables, figures, and quoted text that exceeds 150 words. A copy of all permissions must accompany the manuscript when published in copyrighted material. The author(s) hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. Author(s) must clearly indicate that approval for publication has been received in cases of institutional ownership.
In all submitted material authors retain all copyrights; however, the GlobalCE Journal reserve the right to reprint all or portions of the article and to post all or part of the article online. GlobalCE Journal reserves the right to edit manuscripts as required to publish in the journal. Authors are responsible for obtaining any and all clearances as appropriate. Unless stated otherwise, all articles are open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and original work (e.g. first published in the Global Clinical Engineering Journal) is properly cited with the original URL and bibliographic citation information. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on www.Globalce.org well as the copyright and license information must be included. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
