Dataset Information

Assessment of a three-dimensional (3D) water scanning system for beam commissioning and measurements on a helical tomotherapy unit.

ABSTRACT: Beam scanning data collected on the tomotherapy linear accelerator using the TomoScanner water scanning system is primarily used to verify the golden beam profiles included in all Helical TomoTherapy treatment planning systems (TOMO TPSs). The user is not allowed to modify the beam profiles/parameters for beam modeling within the TOMO TPSs. The authors report the first feasibility study using the Blue Phantom Helix (BPH) as an alternative to the TomoScanner (TS) system. This work establishes a benchmark dataset using BPH for target commissioning and quality assurance (QA), and quantifies systematic uncertainties between TS and BPH. Reproducibility of scanning with BPH was tested by three experienced physicists taking five sets of measurements over a six-month period. BPH provides several enhancements over TS, including a 3D scanning arm, which is able to acquire necessary beam-data with one tank setup, a universal chamber mount, and the OmniPro software, which allows online data collection and analysis. Discrepancies between BPH and TS were estimated by acquiring datasets with each tank. In addition, data measured with BPH and TS was compared to the golden TOMO TPS beam data. The total systematic uncertainty, defined as the combination of scanning system and beam modeling uncertainties, was determined through numerical analysis and tabulated. OmniPro was used for all analysis to eliminate uncertainty due to different data processing algorithms. The setup reproducibility of BPH remained within 0.5 mm/0.5%. Comparing BPH, TS, and Golden TPS for PDDs beyond maximum depth, the total systematic uncertainties were within 1.4mm/2.1%. Between BPH and TPS golden data, maximum differences in the field width and penumbra of in-plane profiles were within 0.8 and 1.1 mm, respectively. Furthermore, in cross-plane profiles, the field width differences increased at depth greater than 10 cm up to 2.5 mm, and maximum penumbra uncertainties were 5.6mm and 4.6 mm from TS scanning system and TPS modeling, respectively. Use of BPH reduced measurement time by 1-2 hrs per session. The BPH has been assessed as an efficient, reproducible, and accurate scanning system capable of providing a reliable benchmark beam data. With this data, a physicist can utilize the BPH in a clinical setting with an understanding of the scan discrepancy that may be encountered while validating the TPS or during routine machine QA. Without the flexibility of modifying the TPS and without a golden beam dataset from the vendor or a TPS model generated from data collected with the BPH, this represents the best solution for current clinical use of the BPH.

SUBMITTER: Peng JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5689986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Accurate beam data acquisition during commissioning is essential for modeling the treatment planning system and dose calculation in radiotherapy. Although currently several commercial scanning systems are available, there is no report that compared the differences among the systems because most institutions do not acquire several scanning systems due to the high cost, storage space, and infrequent usage. In this report, we demonstrate the intra- and intervariability of beam profiles measured with four commercial scanning systems. During a recent educational and training workshop, four different vendors of beam scanning water phantoms were invited to demonstrate the operation and data collection of their systems. Systems were set up utilizing vendor-recommended protocols and were operated with a senior physicist, who was assigned as an instructor along with vendor. During the training sessions, each group was asked to measure beam parameters, and the intravariability in percent depth dose (PDD). At the end of the day, the profile of one linear accelerator was measured with each system to evaluate intervariability. Relatively very small (SD < 0.12%) intervariability in PDD was observed among four systems at a region deeper than peak (1.5 cm). All systems showed almost identical profiles. At the area within 80% of radiation field, the average, and maximum differences were within ± 0.35% and 0.80%, respectively, compared to arbitrarily chosen IBA system as reference. In the penumbrae region, the distance to agreement (DTA) of the region where dose difference exceed ± 1% was less than 1 mm. Repeated PDD measurement showed small intravariability with SD < 0.5%, although large SD was observed in the buildup region. All four water phantom scanning systems demonstrated adequate accuracy for beam data collection (i.e., within 1% of dose difference or 1 mm of DTA among each other). It is concluded that every system is capable of acquiring accurate beam. Thus the selection of a water scanning system should be based on institutional comfort, personal preference of software and hardware, and financial consideration.

Project description:It was previously demonstrated that dose delivered by a conventional linear accelerator using IMRT or VMAT can be reconstructed - on patient or phantom datasets - using helical diode array measurements and a technique called planned dose perturbation (PDP). This allows meaningful and intuitive analysis of the agreement between the planned and delivered dose, including direct comparison of the dose-volume histograms. While conceptually similar to modulated arc techniques, helical tomotherapy introduces significant challenges to the PDP formalism, arising primarily from TomoTherapy delivery dynamics. The temporal characteristics of the delivery are of the same order or shorter than the dosimeter's update interval (50 ms). Additionally, the prevalence of often small and complex segments, particularly with the 1 cm Y jaw setting, lead to challenges related to detector spacing. Here, we present and test a novel method of tomotherapy-PDP (TPDP) designed to meet these challenges. One of the novel techniques introduced for TPDP is organization of the subbeams into larger subunits called sectors, which assures more robust synchronization of the measurement and delivery dynamics. Another important change is the optional application of a correction based on ion chamber (IC) measurements in the phantom. The TPDP method was validated by direct comparisons to the IC and an independent, biplanar diode array dosimeter previously evaluated for tomotherapy delivery quality assurance. Nineteen plans with varying complexity were analyzed for the 2.5 cm tomotherapy jaw setting and 18 for the 1 cm opening. The dose differences between the TPDP and IC were 1.0% ± 1.1% and 1.1% ± 1.1%, for 2.5 and 1.0 cm jaw plans, respectively. Gamma analysis agreement rates between TPDP and the independent array were: 99.1%± 1.8% (using 3% global normalization/3 mm criteria) and 93.4% ± 7.1% (using 2% global/2 mm) for the 2.5 cm jaw plans; for 1 cm plans, they were 95.2% ± 6.7% (3% G/3) and 83.8% ± 12% (2% G/2). We conclude that TPDP is capable of volumetric dose reconstruction with acceptable accuracy. However, the challenges of fast tomotherapy delivery dynamics make TPDP less precise than the IMRT/VMAT PDP version, particularly for the 1 cm jaw setting.

Dataset Information

Assessment of a three-dimensional (3D) water scanning system for beam commissioning and measurements on a helical tomotherapy unit.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets