Quantitative evaluation of patient-specific quality assurance using online dosimetry system

• Published in: Journal of the Korean Physical Society 2018, 72(2), , pp.312-319
• Main Authors: Jung, Jae-Yong, Shin, Young-Ju, Sohn, Seung-Chang, Min, Jung-Whan, Kim, Yon-Lae, Kim, Dong-Su, Choe, Bo-Young, Suh, Tae-Suk
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acceptance criteria; Accuracy; Agreements; Collimation; Dosimeters; Dosimetry; Error analysis; Error detection; Mathematical analysis; Mathematical and Computational Physics; On-line systems; Particle and Nuclear Physics; Physics; Physics and Astronomy; Quality assurance; Quality control; Quantitative analysis; Theoretical; 물리학
• ISSN: 0374-4884; 1976-8524
• DOI: 10.3938/jkps.72.312

In this study, we investigated the clinical performance of an online dosimetry system (Mobius FX system, MFX) by 1) dosimetric plan verification using gamma passing rates and dose volume metrics and 2) error-detection capability evaluation by deliberately introduced machine error. Eighteen volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were studied. To evaluate the clinical performance of the MFX, we used gamma analysis and dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis. In addition, to evaluate the error-detection capability, we used gamma analysis and DVH analysis utilizing three types of deliberately introduced errors (Type 1: gantry angle-independent multi-leaf collimator (MLC) error, Type 2: gantry angle-dependent MLC error, and Type 3: gantry angle error). A dosimetric verification comparison of physical dosimetry system (Delt4 PT ) and online dosimetry system (MFX), gamma passing rates of the two dosimetry systems showed very good agreement with treatment planning system (TPS) calculation. For the average dose difference between the TPS calculation and the MFX measurement, most of the dose metrics showed good agreement within a tolerance of 3%. For the error-detection comparison of Delta4 PT and MFX, the gamma passing rates of the two dosimetry systems did not meet the 90% acceptance criterion with the magnitude of error exceeding 2 mm and 1.5 ◦, respectively, for error plans of Types 1, 2, and 3. For delivery with all error types, the average dose difference of PTV due to error magnitude showed good agreement between calculated TPS and measured MFX within 1%. Overall, the results of the online dosimetry system showed very good agreement with those of the physical dosimetry system. Our results suggest that a log file-based online dosimetry system is a very suitable verification tool for accurate and efficient clinical routines for patient-specific quality assurance (QA).