A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification. (4th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hussein, Mohammad; Adams, Elizabeth J.; Jordan, Thomas J.; Clark, Catharine H.; Nisbet, Andrew
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 14:Number 6(2013)
• Page Start: 274
• Page End: 292
• Publication Date: 2013-11-04
• Subjects: IMRT -- VMAT -- QA -- detector arrays; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : Quality assurance (QA) for intensity‐ and volumetric‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT and VMAT) has evolved substantially. In recent years, various commercial 2D and 3D ionization chamber or diode detector arrays have become available, allowing for absolute verification with near real time results, allowing for streamlined QA. However, detector arrays are limited by their resolution, giving rise to concerns about their sensitivity to errors. Understanding the limitations of these devices is therefore critical. In this study, the sensitivity and resolution of the PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom combination was comprehensively characterized for use in dynamic sliding window IMRT and RapidArc verification. Measurement comparisons were made between single acquisition and a multiple merged acquisition techniques to improve the effective resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY, as well as comparisons against GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film and electronic portal imaging dosimetry (EPID). The sensitivity and resolution of the 2D‐ARRAY was tested using two gantry angle 0° modulated test fields. Deliberate multileaf collimator (MLC) errors of 1, 2, and 5 mm and collimator rotation errors were inserted into IMRT and RapidArc plans for pelvis and head & neck sites, to test sensitivity to errors. The radiobiological impact of these errors was assessed to determine the gamma index passing criteria to be used with the 2D‐ARRAY to detect clinically relevant errors. For gamma index distributions, it was found that the 2D‐ARRAY in single acquisition mode was comparable to multiple acquisition modes, as well as film and EPID. It was found that the commonly used gamma index criteria of 3% dose difference or 3 mm distance to agreement may potentially mask clinically relevant errors. Gamma index criteria of 3%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 98%, or 2%/2 mm with a passing threshold of 95%, were found to be more sensitive. We suggest that the gamma index passing thresholds may be used for guidance, but also should be combined with a visual inspection of the gamma index distribution and calculation of the dose difference to assess whether there may be a clinical impact in failed regions. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc