|
|
|
| Effect of phantoms with different cavity thickness on dose verificationupper esophageal cancer |
| HONG Jun, HAN Jihua, ZHANG Yan, ZHANG Xiaoye, ZHU Zhijian, SHI Tingting |
| The Affiliated Huaian First People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an 223300 China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To investigate the dose calculation accuracy of two algorithms in Monaco TPS for self-made phantoms with different cavity thickness, and analyze the influence of phantoms with different cavity thickness on dose verification of upper esophageal cancer.Methods The phantoms with different cavity thickness were placed on the simulated CT positioning machine to scan and acquire images. In Monaco TPS, the irradiation fields with energy of 6 MV, 100 MU and different square field sizes were added to the acquired images. The dose of the cavity of the ionization chamber was calculated by two algorithms, and measured on the accelerator by dosimeter under the same conditions. At the same time, 20 patients with upper esophageal cancer who received dynamic intensity modulation in fixed field were randomly selected and included in the study, and two algorithms were used for dose verification on phantoms with different cavity thickness. The results were statistically analyzed by SPSS 22.0 software.Results The maximum deviations between the calculated values and the measured values were 0.66% and -1.8%, in the calculation of phantoms with different cavity thickness by algorithms of Monte Carlo and Pencil Beam. In Monte Carlo algorithm, the result of RD pair t test is P > 0.05. Paired t test of AD (0 mm, 10 mm), (5 mm, 10 mm) and (10 mm, 20 mm) groups showed no significant difference (P < 0.05). The maximum deviation was 1.1%, and the rest groups were not statisticely significant (P > 0.05); In Pencil Beam algorithm the t test results of RD (0 mm, 20 mm) and (5 mm, 20 mm) pairs were (P < 0.05), the maximum deviation was 0.58%, and the rest groups were (P > 0.05). In AD group, (P < 0.05), the maximum deviation was 2.78%; The paired t test between the two algorithms was (P < 0.05), and the maximum deviations in RD and AD groups were 2.49% and 4.14%, respectively.Conclusion Monte Carlo algorithm has accurate calculation and high gamma pass rate of dose verification, and there is no clinical difference in gamma pass rate of dose verification among phantoms with different cavity thickness, pencil Beam algorithm is not recommended in cavity phantom calculation.
|
|
Received: 06 December 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 石婷婷, 韩济华, 张艳, 等. 食管癌固定野调强和旋转容积调强计划的剂量学比较[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2020,29(1):89-92. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2020.01.021
Shi TT, Han JH, Zhang Y, et al. Dosimetry comparison of the 5-field IMRT and VMAT planning for esophageal carcinoma[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2020, 29(1): 89-92. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2020.01.021
[2] 何栋成, 张晓晔, 张艳, 等. ArcCheck剂量验证角度分析食管上段癌调强放疗技术[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2019,28(2):206-208, 213. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2019.02.025
He DC, Zhang XY, Zhang Y, et al. The analysis of the radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of upper esophageal cancer form the dose verification by ArcCheck[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2019, 28(2): 206-208, 213. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2019.02.025
[3] 洪君, 单鹄声, 周玉凤. 医用直线加速器早晚绝对剂量输出稳定性对比分析[J]. 医学研究生学报,2018,31(5):512-515. DOI: 10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2018.05.014
Hong J, Shan HS, Zhou YF. Comparative analysis on morning and evening absolute dose output stability of medical linear accelerator[J]. J Med Postgraduates, 2018, 31(5): 512-515. DOI: 10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2018.05.014
[4] 刘博宇, 杨筑春, 卜明伟, 等. 正向射野在颈及胸上段食管癌调强放疗中的应用[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志,2017,24(18):1301-1304. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2017.18.008
Liu BY, Yang ZC, Bu MW, et al. Application of positive fields in IMRT treatment of cervical and upper esophageal cancer[J]. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat, 2017, 24(18): 1301-1304. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2017.18.008
[5] Zhen HM, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(10): 5477-5489. DOI: 10.1118/1.3633904
[6] Olch AJ. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA[J]. Med Phys, 2012, 39(1): 81-86. DOI: 10.1118/1.3666771
[7] Yan GH, Lu B, Kozelka J, et al. Calibration of a novel four-dimensional diode array[J]. Med Phys, 2010, 37(1): 108-115. DOI: 10.1118/1.3266769
[8] Kadoya N, Saito M, Ogasawara M, et al. Evaluation of patient DVH-based QA metrics for prostate VMAT: correlation between accuracy of estimated 3D patient dose and magnitude of MLC misalignment[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2015, 16(3): 5251. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i3.5251
[9] 唐斌, 康盛伟, 王先良, 等. 基于直线加速器虚拟源模型的蒙特卡洛剂量计算及在IMRT独立验算中的初步应用[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2016,25(4):372-375. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2016.04.014
Tang B, Kang SW, Wang XL, et al. Monte Carlo dose calculation based on the virtual source model with linear accelerator and its preliminary application in independent dose calculation for IMRT plans[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncil, 2016, 25(4): 372-375. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2016.04.014
[10] 郭冉, 张艺宝, 李明辉, 等. 调强计划验证通过率的影响因素分析[J]. 中国医学物理学杂志,2018,35(10):1117-1121
Guo R, Zhang YB, Li MH, et al. Factors affecting the passing rate of intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans[J]. Chin J Med Phys, 2018, 35(10): 1117-1121
[11] 洪君, 单鹄声, 周玉凤. 全身集成定位架对放疗靶区吸收剂量的影响[J]. 中国医学物理学杂志,2018,35(7):785-789. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2018.07.009
Hong J, Shan HS, Zhou YF. Effects of systemic integrated orientation frame on absorbed dose of target areas in radiotherapy[J]. Chin J Med Phys, 2018, 35(7): 785-789. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2018.07.009
[12] Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(3): 1313-1338. DOI: 10.1118/1.3514120
[13] 吴仕章, 陈进琥, 李振江, 等. IMRT计划剂量验证924例结果分析[J]. 中华肿瘤防治杂志,2018,25(18):1323-1327. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2018.18.009
Wu SZ, Chen JH, Li ZJ, et al. Analysis of dose verification results for 924 IMRT plans[J]. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat, 2018, 25(18): 1323-1327. DOI: 10.16073/j.cnki.cjcpt.2018.18.009
[14] 张帆, 伍海彪, 肖爱农, 等. 医用加速器射线参数对百分深度剂量影响的蒙特卡罗模拟[J]. 中华放射医学与防护杂志,2018,38(2):145-149. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2018.02.013
Zhang F, Wu HB, Xiao AN, et al. Monte Carlo-based simulation of influence of linear accelerator beam parameter on percentage depth dose[J]. Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2018, 38(2): 145-149. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2018.02.013
[15] 高璇, 李克新, 鞠永健, 等. 前列腺癌患者调强放疗中的摆位误差及其对剂量分布影响分析[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2018,27(3):228-230, 251. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2018.03.010
Gao X, Li KX, Ju YJ, et al. The study about the setup error and its effect on dose distribution in IMRT for prostate cancer patients[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2018, 27(3): 228-230, 251. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2018.03.010
[16] 贺瑶瑶, 荆亮, 黄晓铧, 等. 基于个性化组织等效体模的肺癌三维适形放疗计划算法比较[J]. 中国医学物理学杂志,2019,36(7):755-759. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2019.07.003
He YY, Jing L, Huang XH, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy planning algorithms for lung cancer based on personalized tissue-equivalent phantom[J]. Chin J Med Phys, 2019, 36(7): 755-759. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2019.07.003
|
|
|
|
