Retroactive Calculation of TLD and Film Dose in Anthropomorphic Phantom as Assessment of Updated TPS Performance H. Alkhatib 1, S. Oves 1, B. Tsang 1,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Film QA Pixels Exceeding Gamma = 1% Courtesy of Chester Ramsey.

Advertisements

RapidArc plan verification using ArcCHECK™

Commissioning an Anthropomorphic Spine and Lung Phantom for Remote Dose Verification of Institutions Participating in RTOG 0631 Douglas Caruthers, M.S.;

5 th September 2005 Paul Collins Computed Tomography Dosimetry Assessment of Effective Dose in Computed Tomography using an Anthropomorphic Phantom Paul.

FDA-QA-DAS/2010 FDA’s Public Meeting: Device Improvements to Reduce the Number of Under-doses, Over-doses, and Misaligned Exposures from Therapeutic Radiation.

Challenges in Credentialing Institutions and Participants in Advanced Technology Clinical Trials Geoffrey Ibbott, David Followill, Andrea Molineu, Jessica.

Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic error as measured with the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic thorax phantom.

The Health Roundtable 1-1b_HRT1215-Session_HEGI_JOHNSON_WESTMEAD_NSW Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Early Lung.

Introduction Modern radiation therapies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) demand from dose calculation.

Impacting Radiotherapy Safety and QA with Device Improvements Benedick A Fraass, PhD, FAAPM, FASTRO, FACR Allen S. Lichter Professor of Radiation Oncology.

Results The measured-to-predicted dose ratio criteria used by the RPC to credential institutions is , however for this work, a criteria of

11. – , Athens 8th European Conference on Medical Physics DOSIMETRY AUDITS IN RADIOTHERAPY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Irena Koniarová Daniela Ekendahl.

Quality Control in Radiation Therapy, A New Concept: Dosimetry Check

The external beam radiotherapy and Image-guided radiotherapy (2)

Quality Assurance for a modern treatment planning system

Measurement of Dose to Critical Structures Surrounding the Prostate from Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation.

H Ariyaratne1,2, H Chesham2, J Pettingell2, K Sikora2, R Alonzi1,2

Patient Plan Results: Table 3 shows the ratio of the Pinnacle TPS calculation to the DPM recalculation for the mean dose from selected regions of interest.

Test of the proposed method Introduction CCD Controller CCD Illuminator gel Filter 585nm Assembling the phantom before its irradiation. The phantom, ready.

Evaluation of the Performance of the Fast Scanning Platform of an OCT System Malcolm Heard 1, Miguel Herrera 1, Geoffrey Ibbott 1 1 Department of Radiation.

Applications of Geant4 in Proton Radiotherapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Jerimy C. Polf Assistant Professor Department of Radiation.

In vivo dosimetry Eirik Malinen Eva Stabell Bergstrand Dag Rune Olsen.

Comparison of Clinical Parameters for Proton Therapy in the United States Paige Summers, MS.

Surface dose prediction and verification for IMRT plans using line dose profiles † Ronald E. Berg, † Michael S. Gossman and ‡ Stephen J. Klash † Erlanger.

The RPC Proton Therapy Approval Process

Application of a 2-D ionization chamber array for dose verification of dynamic IMRT with a micro-MLC Fujio ARAKI, PhD 1, S. TAJIRI 2, H. TOMINAGA 2, K.

A General Purpose Brachytherapy Software Simulation + Analysis (isodose calculation) 2/10/2002 Geant4 Workshop CERN Susanna Guatelli Univ. and INFN Genova.

Medical Accelerator F. Foppiano, M.G. Pia, M. Piergentili

Radiological Physics Center David Followill, Ph.D. and RPC Staff.

The Radiological Physics Center’s Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantom Program Carrie F. Amador, Nadia Hernandez, Andrea Molineu, Paola Alvarez, and.

1 A Comprehensive Study on the Heterogeneity Dose Calculation Accuracy in IMRT using an Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom S Davidson 1, R Popple 2, G Ibbott.

Identification of a 3D dosimeter best-suited for use by the RPC M. Heard, G. Ibbott, D. Followill, R. White, E. Jackson, M. Salehpour.

Investigation of 3D Dosimetry for an Anthropomorphic Spine Phantom R. Grant 1,2, G. Ibbott 1, J. Yang 1, J. Adamovics 3, D Followill 1 (1)M.D. Anderson.

Principles and Practice of Radiation Therapy

IRCC & Mauriziano Hospital & INFN & S Croce e Carle Hospital

Introduction The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) anthropomorphic quality assurance (QA) phantom program is one tool the RPC uses to remotely audit institutions.

F. Foppiano, M.G. Pia, M. Piergentili

P. Rodrigues, A. Trindade, L.Peralta, J. Varela GEANT4 Medical Applications at LIP GEANT4 Workshop, September – 4 October LIP – Lisbon.

Optimization of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Planning Strategy Using Ring-shaped ROI for Localized Prostate cancer Kentaro Ishii, Masako Hosono,

TLD POSTAL DOSE QUALITY AUDIT FOR 6MV AND 15MV PHOTON BEAMS IN RADIOTHERAPY CLINICAL PRACTICE Sonja Petkovska 1, Margarita Ginovska 2, Hristina Spasevska.

Radiation Therapy Trials - Quality Assurance:  patient safety  adherence to protocol constraints  uniformity of patient treatments  efficient review.

Flair development for the MC TPS Wioletta Kozłowska CERN / Medical University of Vienna.

Purpose N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) polymer gel dosimeters were employed to verify the dose distribution of clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy.

 Multidisciplinary Effort › Surgery › Radiation › Systemic Rx (chemo, “drugs”)

Commissioning of a commercial treatment planning system for IMAT and Dose Painting treatment delivery. G. Pittomvils 1,,L. Paelinck 1, F. Crop 2, W. De.

The Effects of Small Field Dosimetry on the Biological Models Used In Evaluating IMRT Dose Distributions Gene Cardarelli,PhD, MPH.

Rapid Arc Treatment Verification: post evaluation on Delta-4 and proposal of a new verification protocol G. Pittomvils 1,,L. Paelinck 1, T. Boterberg 1,

Measurements of the photon and neutron dose delivered to organs outside the radiation beams for 3DCRT and IMRT radiotherapy A. Kowalik 1, W. Jackowiak.

Development of elements of 3D planning program for radiotherapy Graphical editor options  automated enclose of contour  correction of intersections 

E. Mezzenga 1, E. Cagni 1, A. Botti 1, M. Orlandi 1, W.D. Renner 2, M. Iori 1 1. Medical Physics Unit, ASMN-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Italy 2. MathResolution.

A. Sánchez-Reyes. , N. López Vilanova+, A. Vila. , M. A. Duch+, A

Hsiao-Ju Fu Yuk-Wah Tsang Chih-Chia Chang

The magnitude of H&N IMRT dose delivery errors from three possible failure modes: beam quality, symmetry, and MLC position Jackie Tonigan, M.S. Advisor:

EURADOS Working Group 9: Radiation Dosimetry in Radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION RESULTS DATA ANALYSIS DISCUSSION METHODS REFERENCES

Quality of treatment plans and accuracy of in vivo portal dosimetry in hybrid intensity- modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy.

An Investigation of the Effect of Window and Level Controls on the accuracy of the ExacTrac Patient Repositioning System Dan Goldbaum and Russell Hamilton.

CONTACT Catalina A. Riley

Fig. 4. Percentage of passing rate between clinical and 544 plans.

Reducing Treatment Time and MUs by using Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy for SBRT Breath-Hold Patients Timothy Miller, Sebastian Nunez Albermann, Besil Raju,

Insert tables Insert figure

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Anal Carcinoma Heather Ortega, BSRT(T), CMD, Kerry Hibbitts,

Phantom Verification of AAA and Acuros Dose Calculations for Lung Cancer: Do Tumor Size and Regression Matter? Satomi Shiraishi, PhD, Luis E. Fong de.

Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology

Chapter 17 Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

P. Rodrigues, A. Trindade, L.Peralta, J. Varela

Figure 2 Variations between planned and delivered doses of radiation

Figure 3 Craniospinal irradiation proton therapy for medulloblastoma

GHG meeting at ESTRO36 May, 2017

Surface doses of flattening filter free beams with volumetric modulated arc therapy dose delivery for breast cancer Jan Seppälä, Aleksi Voutilainen,

Presentation transcript:

Retroactive Calculation of TLD and Film Dose in Anthropomorphic Phantom as Assessment of Updated TPS Performance H. Alkhatib 1, S. Oves 1, B. Tsang 1, W. Neglia 1, P. Sobash 2 1 South Carolina Oncology Associates, Columbia, SC 2 Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC Summary Abstract Materials and Methods Pinnacle Version 9.2 and 9.6 Results: Dose Points Results: Film Profiles CT images and IMRT plan of a RPC anthropomorphic head phantom, previously calculated by Pinnacle 3 version 9.0, was re-computed using Pinnacle and 9.6. The dosimeters within the phantom include four TLD capsules representing a primary PTV, two TLD capsules representing a secondary PTV, and two TLD capsules representing an organ at risk. Also included were three sheets of film arranged into axial and sagittal planes. Performance of the updated TPS version was assessed by recalculating point doses and dose profiles corresponding to TLD and film position respectively and then comparing the results to reported values by the RPC The purpose of this study is to demonstrate a quick and comprehensive method verifying the accuracy of an updated treatment planning system. In this method, the dose model of the newer TPS version is tested by re-computing dose distribution to a previously irradiated anthropomorphic phantom used by third-parties to verify stated dose deliveries. The test itself can be achieved by the user recalculating dose to positions corresponding to point detectors and dose profiles corresponding to film positions within the phantom. This data can then be compared to previously reported measured values. Anthropomorphic Phantom TLD Positions The graph compares dose values reported by the RPC to calculated values by Pinnacle 3 versions 9.0, 9.2, and 9.6. This work shows the difference in dose calculation in an RPC head phantom between Pinnacle 3 versions , and 9.6 for a dynamic arc treatment setup. Additionally, this study illustrates a method for the user to gain confidence in the performance of a software upgrade which is particularly helpful when time is limited. The above graphs shows a comparison of Pinnacle 3 9.0, and 9.6 dose profiles within the RPC head phantom. Anthropomorphic Phantom Film Profiles Above is a CT reconstruction of the RPC head phantom. The colored points represent positions of TLD pairs within the phantom Above is a CT reconstruction of the RPC head phantom. The rectangular planes represent film positions. Philips Pinnacle 3 version 9.2 released in 2012 lists improved small field accuracy as one of its new features. The new features of version 9.6, released in 2013, does not include an update in beam modeling or dose algorithm. However, it is the recommendation of the AAPM that that all TPS be commissioned after software updates 1. For both the 9.2 and 9.6 versions, the treatment plans were copied from that of 9.0 to ensure that dose calculations were only affected by the updated beam modeling. The plan itself is a 2-arc sliding window IMRT configuration optimized to deliver 6.6 Gy to an area of the phantom labeled as ‘primary PTV’ by the RPC. 1. Fraass, et al. “AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53,” Med. Phys. 25 (10), (1998).