Premium
Technical Note: Three‐dimensional QA of simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy treatments by a dose‐volume histogram methodology and its comparison with 3D gamma results
Author(s) -
Acurio Erick Sebastian Rundo,
Lizar Jéssica Caroline,
Arruda Gustavo Viani,
Pavoni Juliana Fernandes
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1002/mp.14859
Subject(s) - quality assurance , nuclear medicine , dose volume histogram , radiation treatment planning , imaging phantom , dosimeter , dosimetry , histogram , mathematics , radiation therapy , standard deviation , medical physics , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , statistics , radiology , image (mathematics) , external quality assessment , pathology
Purpose Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) presents several attractive advantages to be employed in clinical practice. Its secure application demands a rigorous quality assurance (QA) procedure, ideal for three‐dimensional (3D) dose distribution measurements. Thus, a gel dosimetry methodology to evaluate the dose delivery of SIB treatments is presented and compared to conventional gamma evaluation. Methods MAGIC‐f gel dosimeter with magnetic resonance images for dose reading were used following its standard procedures. Four SIB QA plans created in gel dosimeter phantoms were used. The gel measured and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated doses were compared using 3D gamma analyses (3%/3mm/15% threshold). Two structures were artificially on the TPS dose distribution expected on the phantom by converting the 1.7 and 2.0 Gy isodose levels into structures to represent the treatment. The gel and TPS dose‐volume histogram (DVH) were compared based on five dose points: D95%, D90%, D50%, D10%, and D5%. Results Approvals of 93%, 96%, 98%, and 92% were achieved in the 3D gamma analyses for the plans QA 1, 2, 3, and 4. In the DVH analyses, QA plan 1 measured and expected curves showed a good agreement. QA plan 2 showed deviations in the highest doses for both structures with a maximum deviation (Δ máx ) of 8.0%. QA plans 3 and 4 showed the highest dose variation between the gel and TPS in the smaller doses of the DVH (Δ máx of 7.2% and −8.9%, respectively). For QA plan 4, the curves of the 1.7 Gy structure presented a good agreement, but deviations in the smaller dose region of the DVH occurred for the 2 Gy structure (Δ máx of 7.7%). Conclusions A methodology for 3D dose evaluation of complex SIB treatments was proposed. It provided an important overview of the dose distributions. Their results significantly complemented the usual gamma analysis results.