Quality assurance of TomoDirect treatment plans using I’mRT MatriXX

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of 2D-array I’mRT MatriXX for dose verification of TomoDirect treatment plans. Methods: In this study, a 2D-array ion chamber device – the I’mRT MatriXX and Multicube Phantom from IBA – was used for dose verification of different TomoDirect plans. Pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) was performed on the phantom setup for position correction. After the irradiation of treatment plans on the I’mRT MatriXX and Multicube Phantom, the measured doses of coronal planes were compared with those from the planning calculations for verification. The results were evaluated by comparing the absolute dose difference in the high dose region as well as the gamma analysis of the 2D-dose distributions on the coronal plane. The comparison was then repeated with the measured dose corrected for angular dependence of the MatriXX. Results: When angular dependence is taken into account, the passing rate of gamma analysis is over 90% for all measurements using the MatriXX. If there is no angular dependence correction, the passing rate of gamma analysis worsens for treatment plans with dose contribution from the rear. The passing rate can be as low as 53.55% in extreme cases, i.e. where all doses in the treatment plan are delivered from the rear. Conclusion: It is important to correct the measured dose for angular dependence when verifying TomoDirect treatment plans using the MatriXX. If left uncorrected, a large dose discrepancy may be introduced to the verification results.

[1]  Barbara Dobler,et al.  Hybrid plan verification for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the 2D ionization chamber array I'mRT MatriXX—a feasibility study , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  M Al-Ghazi,et al.  The University of California, Irvine experience with tomotherapy using the Peacock system. , 2001, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[3]  Sathiyan Saminathan,et al.  Plan evaluation and dosimetric comparison of IMRT using AAPM TG119 test suites and recommendations , 2011, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[4]  T. Rockwell Mackie,et al.  Helical Tomotherapy: An Innovative Technology and Approach to Radiation Therapy , 2002, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[5]  W. Grant,et al.  QA for helical tomotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 148. , 2010, Medical physics.

[6]  Ravikumar Manickam,et al.  Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[7]  A W Beavis,et al.  Is tomotherapy the future of IMRT? , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  J O Deasy,et al.  Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. , 1993, Medical physics.

[9]  D. Albers,et al.  Dosimetric evaluation of a 2D pixel ionization chamber for implementation in clinical routine , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  J. Mechalakos,et al.  IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. , 2009, Medical physics.

[11]  Dose verification of helical tomotherapy intensity modulated radiation therapy planning using 2D-array ion chambers , 2010, Biomedical imaging and intervention journal.

[12]  S. Tofani,et al.  TomoDirect: An efficient means to deliver radiation at static angles with tomotherapy , 2011, Tumori.

[13]  Study of 2D ion chamber array for angular response and QA of dynamic MLC and pretreatment IMRT plans , 2009 .

[14]  H. Vorwerk,et al.  Two years experience with quality assurance protocol for patient related Rapid Arc treatment plan verification using a two dimensional ionization chamber array , 2011, Radiation oncology.

[15]  Volker Steil,et al.  Evaluation of a 2D detector array for patient-specific VMAT QA with different setups. , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.