Assessment of combined use of ArcCheck® detector and portal dosimetry for delivery quality assurance of head and neck and prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. (19th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Moliner, Gilles; Sorro, Lise; Verstraet, Rodolfe; Daviau, Paul Alexandre; Casas, Mélanie; Piron, Bérengère; Dubois, Karine; Debrigode, Charles; Barrau, Corinne; Bons, Françoise; Greffier, Joël
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 133
• Page End: 139
• Publication Date: 2018-10-19
• Subjects: ArcCheck -- Gamma index -- PDIP -- VMAT pretreatment quality assurance; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12460
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To assess the efficiency of combined use of ArcCheck ® detector (AC) and portal dosimetry (PDIP) for delivery quality assurance of head and neck and prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. Materials and methods: Measurement processes were studied with the Gamma index method according to three analysis protocols. The detection sensitivity to technical errors of each individual or combined measurement processes was studied by inserting collimator, dose and MLC opening error into five head and neck and five prostate initial treatment plans. A total of 220 plans were created and 660 analyses were conducted by comparing measurements to error free planned dose matrix. Results: For head and neck localization, collimator errors could be detected from 2° for AC and 3° for PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 2% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. Depending on the analysis protocol, the detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 54% to 88% for AC vs 40% to 74% for PDIP and 58% to 92% for the combined process. For the prostate localization, collimator errors could be detected from 4° for AC while they could not be detected by PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 3% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. The detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 30% to 56% for AC vs 16% to 38% for PDIP and 30% to 58% for combined process. Conclusion: The combined use of the two measurement processes did not statistically improve the detectability of technical errors compared to use of single process.