• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics >Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID)
【2h】

Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID)

机译：与整体质量监测器（IQM）和电子门户成像设备（EPID）进行预处理VMAT质量保证的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose‐volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (RIQM = 0.99; REPID = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.
机译：本研究的目的是比较预处理体积调制电弧治疗（VMAT）质量保证（QA）测量，并评估两个探测器的多叶准直器（MLC）误差灵敏度：整体质量监视器（IQM）系统（IRT系统IQM）和电子门户成像设备（EPID）（Varian PortalVision AS1200）。对20个回顾性VMAT计划进行预处理QA测量（53个弧）。 10个计划（23个弧）的子集用于调查每个设备的MLC误差灵敏度。为每个VMAT计划创建八个MLC错误计划。误差包括MLC和随机位置误差（1 mm）的系统开口/关闭（±0.25，±0.50，±0.75mm），用于个体/叶片。使用相对于计算信号的测量累积信号的百分比评估IQM。使用两种方法评估ePID：相对于预测累积信号测量的新百分比误差，γ（γ）分析（1％/ 1mm，2％/ 2mm，3％/ 3mm和3％/ 1 mm用于立体定向体放射治疗计划）。还比较了从剂量直方图（DVH）数据（DVH）数据（DVH）数据（DVH）数据中获得的最大剂量的平均变化以及用于不同系统MLC偏移的探测器信号的变化。累积信号差异显示出测量和预期探测器信号之间相似的一致性（IQM：1.00±0.55％; EPID：1.22±0.92％）。 γ分析的结果缺乏特异性。只有1％/ 1毫米标准生产具有显着差异的数据。在IQM和EPID累积信号差异之间观察到强大的线性相关性，与MLC误差幅度（R = 0.99）。同样，结果表明探测器和DVH剂量的累积信号与DVH剂量（RIQM = 0.99; REPID = 0.97）之间的强相关性。总之，使用累积信号差异对于检测杂志中的治疗递送的误差比γ分析可能更有用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号