SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool

Purpose: This study is to evaluate the difference between two QA IMRT techniques(single‐gantry‐angle composite and patient‐gantry angle) of patient delivery plan. Methods: 7 Head‐and‐Neck(H & N) and 4 Brain IMRT patient plan generated by Varian‐Eclipse treatment planning system are used in this...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: S. Khachonkham, P. Changkaew, P. Tangboonduangjit
Other Authors: Mahidol University
Format: Conference or Workshop Item
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/11620
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Mahidol University
id th-mahidol.11620
record_format dspace
spelling th-mahidol.116202018-05-03T15:38:19Z SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool S. Khachonkham P. Changkaew P. Tangboonduangjit Mahidol University Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology Medicine Purpose: This study is to evaluate the difference between two QA IMRT techniques(single‐gantry‐angle composite and patient‐gantry angle) of patient delivery plan. Methods: 7 Head‐and‐Neck(H & N) and 4 Brain IMRT patient plan generated by Varian‐Eclipse treatment planning system are used in this study. Each patient plan was measured using MapCheck diode array(MapCheck2, SunNuclear) with 1527 diode detector. MapCheck array is mounted on the isocentric mounting fixture (IMF) attached to the gantry used for measuring dose. All measurement of two QA IMRT technique with single‐gantry‐angle composite at 0 degree gantry position and patient gantry angle were compared to the TPS dose plane using gamma evaluation. Gamma criteria are set to 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement(DTA) and 10% threshold criteria for dose comparison. Difference between two QA techniques was evaluated by using the percentage of passing point between measurement and TPS dose plan. Results: The percentage of passing point are different between two QA IMRT technique in the same patient plan. The difference of both relative and absolute pass rate range between 0 to 3% for Head and neck plan and 0– 1.5% for brain plan respectively. Almost all the relative pass rate and absolute pass rate of single‐gantry‐angle composite are higher than patient‐ gantry angle technique in the same plan. The different result of pass rate between two techniques due to the effect of gantry machine and MLC moving in gravity. Other issues might relate to set‐up uncertainty of measurement. The dominant gantry angle dependence is larger in complex H & N IMRT plan with large high dose gradient and smaller in brain IMRT plan. Conclusions: Because of gantry angle dependence, in complex IMRT patient plan should be verified by using patient gantry angle technique in order to achieve the QA result with real situation of patient IMRT treatment. © 2011, American Association of Physicists in Medicine. All rights reserved. 2018-05-03T08:04:38Z 2018-05-03T08:04:38Z 2011-01-01 Conference Paper Medical Physics. Vol.38, No.6 (2011), 3596 10.1118/1.3612420 00942405 2-s2.0-85024383064 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/11620 Mahidol University SCOPUS https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85024383064&origin=inward
institution Mahidol University
building Mahidol University Library
continent Asia
country Thailand
Thailand
content_provider Mahidol University Library
collection Mahidol University Institutional Repository
topic Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Medicine
spellingShingle Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Medicine
S. Khachonkham
P. Changkaew
P. Tangboonduangjit
SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
description Purpose: This study is to evaluate the difference between two QA IMRT techniques(single‐gantry‐angle composite and patient‐gantry angle) of patient delivery plan. Methods: 7 Head‐and‐Neck(H & N) and 4 Brain IMRT patient plan generated by Varian‐Eclipse treatment planning system are used in this study. Each patient plan was measured using MapCheck diode array(MapCheck2, SunNuclear) with 1527 diode detector. MapCheck array is mounted on the isocentric mounting fixture (IMF) attached to the gantry used for measuring dose. All measurement of two QA IMRT technique with single‐gantry‐angle composite at 0 degree gantry position and patient gantry angle were compared to the TPS dose plane using gamma evaluation. Gamma criteria are set to 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement(DTA) and 10% threshold criteria for dose comparison. Difference between two QA techniques was evaluated by using the percentage of passing point between measurement and TPS dose plan. Results: The percentage of passing point are different between two QA IMRT technique in the same patient plan. The difference of both relative and absolute pass rate range between 0 to 3% for Head and neck plan and 0– 1.5% for brain plan respectively. Almost all the relative pass rate and absolute pass rate of single‐gantry‐angle composite are higher than patient‐ gantry angle technique in the same plan. The different result of pass rate between two techniques due to the effect of gantry machine and MLC moving in gravity. Other issues might relate to set‐up uncertainty of measurement. The dominant gantry angle dependence is larger in complex H & N IMRT plan with large high dose gradient and smaller in brain IMRT plan. Conclusions: Because of gantry angle dependence, in complex IMRT patient plan should be verified by using patient gantry angle technique in order to achieve the QA result with real situation of patient IMRT treatment. © 2011, American Association of Physicists in Medicine. All rights reserved.
author2 Mahidol University
author_facet Mahidol University
S. Khachonkham
P. Changkaew
P. Tangboonduangjit
format Conference or Workshop Item
author S. Khachonkham
P. Changkaew
P. Tangboonduangjit
author_sort S. Khachonkham
title SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
title_short SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
title_full SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
title_fullStr SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
title_full_unstemmed SU‐E‐T‐466: IMRT QA Technique Comparison between Single‐Gantry‐Angle Composite (SGAC) and Patient‐Gantry Angle Using MapCheckTM with Isocentric Mounting Fixture Tool
title_sort su‐e‐t‐466: imrt qa technique comparison between single‐gantry‐angle composite (sgac) and patient‐gantry angle using mapchecktm with isocentric mounting fixture tool
publishDate 2018
url https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/11620
_version_ 1763488154986217472