Quality assurance devices for dynamic conformal radiotherapy

Two quality control devices, a light‐field device and a radiation‐field device, have been specially designed to assist the clinical implementation of conformal dynamic arc treatment (CDAT) and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). With these devices, the light field as well as the radiation field projected from the individual beams at any treatment position (i.e., arbitrary gantry angle) can be evaluated. The devices are attached at the front end of the couch and placed at the isocenter of the linear accelerator treatment system (LINAC). The devices are designed to be able to rotate parallel to the gantry head so that the light field and the radiation field projected from a direct beam can be assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the geometric precision of the beam placement and the dosimetric accuracy performed in CDAT and IMRT with the aid of these devices. The devices are placed separately from the LINAC during use and provide an independent check on the quality performance of the LINAC in three dimensions. The condition of gantry sagging and any mechanical displacement resulting in field shift can be observed and traced during gantry rotation. Mistakes that occur during the isocenter calibration can lead to significant displacement in the field projection, which would not be revealed with the conventional quality control setting (i.e., gantry 0°). This was demonstrated with the aid of the two quality control devices in the study. The influence of gravitational acceleration in the multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) leaf positioning error, which would consequently lead to inaccurate dose delivery, was investigated. The results of our study show that the existence of a gravitational influence is statistically significant, although the magnitude of the dose inaccuracy is small. PACS numbers: 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Fc, 87.66.Cd

[1]  T. Solberg,et al.  Dynamic arc radiosurgery field shaping: a comparison with static field conformal and noncoplanar circular arcs. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  R. Wurm,et al.  Dynamic arc radiosurgery and radiotherapy: commissioning and verification of dose distributions. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  E. Scientific,et al.  Stereotactic radiotherapy of irregular targets: a comparison between static conformal beams and non-coplanar arcs , 1993 .

[4]  J. Palta,et al.  Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. , 1994, Medical physics.

[5]  S. Webb,et al.  Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  J. Tsai,et al.  Dosimetric verification of the dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy of 92 patients. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  C. Ramsey,et al.  Leaf position error during conformal dynamic arc and intensity modulated arc treatments. , 2001, Medical physics.

[8]  D. Low,et al.  Phantoms for IMRT dose distribution measurement and treatment verification. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  A L Boyer,et al.  A dosimetric comparison of fan-beam intensity modulated radiotherapy with Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery for treating intermediate intracranial lesions. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  G T Chen,et al.  Comparison of static conformal field with multiple noncoplanar arc techniques for stereotactic radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  C. Ling,et al.  Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 1998, Medical physics.

[12]  Timothy D. Solberg,et al.  Patient specific quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy , 2003, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[13]  K. Stelzer,et al.  Stereotactic radiosurgery: a review and comparison of methods. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  J. Lebesque,et al.  Dosimetric verification of the 95% isodose surface for a conformal irradiation technique. , 1998, Medical physics.

[15]  J. Cygler,et al.  Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  R. Laing,et al.  Stereotactic radiotherapy of irregular targets: a comparison between static conformal beams and non-coplanar arcs. , 1993, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  J. Dempsey,et al.  Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. , 1998, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[18]  A L Boyer,et al.  Modulated beam conformal therapy for head and neck tumors. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.