Servicios Personalizados
Revista
Articulo
texto en 
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por emailIndicadores
-
Citado por SciELO
Links relacionados
-
Similares en
SciELO
Compartir
Permalink
Revista de la Facultad de Medicina Humana
versión impresa ISSN 1814-5469versión On-line ISSN 2308-0531
Rev. Fac. Med. Hum. vol.24 no.4 Lima oct./dic. 2024 Epub 31-Oct-2024
http://dx.doi.org/10.25176/rfmh.v24i4.6793
Original Article
Implementation of patient-specific quality control in radiotherapy treatments with ArcCheck
¹Curso de Bacharelado em Física Médica, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil
²Departamento de Radioterapia, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil
³Grupo de pesquisa em Física Médica Experimental e Computacional, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brasil
Introduction:
Quality control is essential to ensure safety and prevent errors in the administration of ionizing radiation across various radiotherapy techniques.
Objective:
To evaluate the performance of the ArcCheck detector to implement a specific quality control technique for patients treated with dynamic arc therapy.
Methods:
Fifty patients treated with 6 MV and 10 MV energies on the Clinac® Varian CX were selected. Doses at the isocenter of each treatment plan were analyzed using polymethyl methacrylate phantom (30 x 30 x 15 cm³) to validate reference values between the treatment planning system and the ionization chamber. The treatment plans were also recreated using the ArcCheck.
Results:
The mean dose difference at the isocenter was -0.96% and -1.34% for 6 MV and 10 MV, respectively. The average passing rate of the dose distributions in the gamma analysis exceeded 98.0% for both energies. Conclusion: The results demonstrated good concordance with the TG-119 and TG-218 protocols, supporting the use of the detector for quality control in patient-specific treatments.
Keywords: ArcCHECK; VMAT; Radiotherapy; gamma index. (Source: MESH-NLM)
INTRODUCTION
Radiotherapy has been applied since the early 1950s 1, and over the years, there has been significant advancement in the technologies and techniques of daily procedures, making the Treatment Planning System (TPS) more complex and patient-specific. Therefore, as TPS complexities increase, Quality Assurance (QA) methods must continuously evolve to ensure the proper functioning of the radiation dose delivery system 2. Innovations in the field have led to the development of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), which involves the movement of a collimator composed of multiple leaves to modulate the intensity of the radiation beam. With advancements, the technique has been refined into Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), where the intensity of the dose rate beam is modulated with the gantry's movement. Another technique used is dynamic arc radiotherapy, which can shape the irradiation dose of a treatment, where the beam opening is continuously altered, and the leaves are dynamically adjusted to the target's shape through one or more rotations of the clinical linear accelerator's (LINAC) gantry. However, the dose rate and gantry speed have fixed values. Dynamic arc therapy can potentially ensure better treatment coverage, preserve normal tissue, and reduce dose delivery times 3.
Proper treatment administration must be ensured through dosimetric analysis, which includes treatment plan verification through dose delivery and distribution measurements. The success or failure of a radiation treatment, as recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, depends on the percentage difference between the absorbed dose at a reference point in the tumor and the prescribed dose for the same point. Dosimetric analysis precision should be within ± 5% 4,5 of the difference between both. Possible sources of errors in radiotherapy include various factors, not limited to errors in the location of the organ to be treated, patient immobilization and positioning, and the calibration of the LINAC and its devices. These errors compromise treatment success and must be considered within the quality assurance program of the treatment through a rigorous periodic verification called patient-specific quality control 6.
In order to minimize this degree of uncertainty, various specialized organizations recommend quality assurance programs. It is extremely important to perform patient-specific quality control (QC) 7 to ensure that the delivered dose distribution matches the dose prescribed by the radiation oncologist. Thus, the medical physicist is responsible for the QC and must create a methodology that allows testing, according to the resources available at their institution. For dosimetric analysis of point measurements, approval is ensured within the measurement error margin.
The gamma analysis is a method generally used to verify whether the planned dose distribution is equivalent to the one that would be delivered to the patient; for this, a comparison is made between the planned plane and an experimentally obtained distribution. The gamma index evaluates the dose difference and the distance to agreement (DTA) between two dose distributions 8-11.
The Task Group 218 (TG-218) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine introduced more advanced concepts on tolerance limits and the methodologies used for patient-specific QA, recommending criteria of a 3% dose difference and 2mm DTA (3%/2mm), which are commonly used in clinical dosimetry 7.
This study aimed to implement a quality control process for radiotherapy with dynamic arc technique in the LINAC CX, using the ArcCheck™ dose verification detector (Sun Nuclear Corp., FL), for clinical cases of patients already treated at a radiotherapy center in Brazil.
METHODS
Study Design
This study used an applied experimental design for patient-specific quality control, in which the performance of the ArcCHECK system was evaluated for patients treated with radiotherapy.
Patient Selection
Fifty patients with different types of carcinomas were selected. They received treatment using the dynamic arc technique with the Varian CX LINAC, for irradiation fields larger than 5 x 5 cm². Of these patients, 17 were treated with 6 MV energy and thirty-three with 10 MV energy.
Materials and Equipment
Following the TG-119 recommendations, a 15 cm-high phantom, composed of flat solid water plates measuring 30 x 30 cm², was used, as shown in Figure 1.
The dosimetric systems used included a FC65-P Farmer cylindrical ionization chamber with a sensitive volume of 0.6 cm³. Additionally, an ArcCHECK™ detector (Sun Nuclear Corp., FL) was employed, which consists of a cylindrical water-equivalent phantom with an array of 1386 diode detectors arranged in a helical pattern to measure dose distributions. The LINAC used was a Clinac CX (Varian Medical Systems; Palo Alto, California, USA), operating with photon beams of 6 MV and 10 MV. The system is capable of producing shaped fields, as well as dynamic therapy involving gantry rotation, commonly known as dynamic arc.
The computerized treatment planning system (TPS) used was Eclipse version 15.5 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA).
Point Verification with the Ionization Chamber
Using the ionization chamber, it was possible to obtain dose values at the isocenter of the treatment plans, which were reproduced from the plans in the TPS Eclipse. The doses measured with the ionization chamber and the doses calculated by the TPS were compared for the plans with energies of 6 MV and 10 MV.
Dose Delivery and Verification
Parameters such as energy, field size, arcs, and other data from the treatment plans of each selected patient were obtained through the TPS.
Using the phantom shown in Figure 1, measurements were taken with an ionization chamber for point dosimetry 12 at the isocenter of each treatment plan, and then compared with the data obtained from the TPS. For the dose distributions, the parameters of the treatment plans were exported and experimentally simulated by the ArcCheck diode array. In conjunction with ArcCheck, the SNC Patient™ software projects the measurement onto the cylindrical surface into a plane and displays it similarly to a flat (2D) matrix, which can be reconstructed into a three-dimensional matrix 13-15.
Gamma Index Evaluation
For comparison of the planned and measured dose distributions, TG 218 recommends a gamma index criterion of 3%/2 mm with a universal tolerance of 95%, while the code of practice from the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry suggests a criterion of at least 3%/3 mm with the same tolerance for all anatomical sites. Most institutions use the gamma index as the main criterion for plan approval, and it can also be used to approve patient-specific quality control 16. In this evaluation study, there are dose distributions in the central plane of each treatment for each patient, respectively, for the energies of dynamic arc treatments with 6 MV and 10 MV photons.
RESULTS
IONIZATION CHAMBER DATA
The point dose values measured by the ionization chamber were calculated and compared with the values obtained with the TPS Eclipse. The doses measured by the ionization chamber and those calculated by the TPS for 6 MV and 10 MV energies are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
The percentage variation in the difference between the calculated point doses ranged from -2.85% to 1.03% for 6 MV energy and from -3.68% to 2.04% for 10 MV energy. The average dose difference at the isocenter was -0.96% and -1.34% for 6 MV and 10 MV, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Table 1 Point dose measured and calculated at the isocenter using the ionization chamber; evaluation of dose distributions with gamma index for 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm for patients treated with a 6 MV beam.
| Patient No. | Anatomical Region | Ionization Chamber (cGy) | TPS (cGy) | Dose Difference (%) | Gamma Index (3%/3mm) | Gamma Index (3%/2mm) |
| 1 | Flank | 372.62 | 374.20 | -0.42% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 2 | Esophagus | 237.72 | 239.40 | -0.70% | 100.00% | 99.70% |
| 3 | Lung | 217.62 | 222.30 | -2.10% | 99.90% | 99.80% |
| 4 | Esophagus | 192.77 | 195.80 | -1.55% | 99.9% | 99.8% |
| 5 | Esophagus | 220.67 | 225.30 | -2.06% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 6 | Bone MTS* | 257.47 | 262.10 | -1.77% | 100.00% | 99.80% |
| 7 | Esophagus | 179.18 | 183.40 | -2.30% | 99.70% | 99.40% |
| 8 | Shoulder MTS* | 300.09 | 308.9 | -2.85% | 100.00% | 99.80% |
| 9 | Breast | 311.03 | 312.9 | -0.60% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 10 | Esophagus | 291.71 | 290.3 | 0.48% | 100.00% | 99.80% |
| 11 | Esophagus | 189.64 | 188.2 | 0.77% | 99.80% | 99.70% |
| 12 | Escape MTS* | 304.13 | 305.4 | -0.42% | 98.90% | 98.50% |
| 13 | Esophagus | 200.29 | 202.5 | -1.09% | ||
| 14 | Esophagus | 225.32 | 227.5 | -0.96% | 99.90% | 99.60% |
| 15 | Right foot | 329.80 | 333.7 | -1.17% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 16 | Sternum MTS* | 291.56 | 288.6 | 1.03% | 100.00% | 99.70% |
| 17 | Lung | 221.33 | 219.7 | 0.74% | 99.90% | 99.70% |
*MTS: Metastasis
Table 2 Point dose measured and calculated at the isocenter using the ionization chamber; evaluation of dose distributions with gamma index for 3%/3mm and 3%/2mm for patients treated with a 10 MV beam
| Patient No. | Anatomical Region | Ionization Chamber (cGy) | TPS (cGy) | Dose Difference (%) | Gamma Index (3%/3mm) | Gamma Index (3%/2mm) |
| 1 | Left Lung | 207.80 | 212.04 | 2.04% | 94.50% | 93.00% |
| 2 | SVC | 339.70 | 334.75 | -1.46% | 99.90% | 99.70% |
| 3 | Left Rib MTS* | 346.60 | 352.68 | 1.75% | 99.79 | 99.10% |
| 4 | Esophagus | 228.80 | 225.02 | -1.65% | 99.8% | 99.70% |
| 5 | Right Lung | 266.10 | 264.75 | -0.51% | 99.60% | 98.90% |
| 6 | T3 MTS* | 354.30 | 345.83 | -2.39% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 7 | Right Rib | 278.80 | 275.00 | -1.36% | 100.00% | 98.50% |
| 8 | L3-L5 MTS* | 500.50 | 493.08 | -1.48% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 9 | T7 MTS* | 324.60 | 313.48 | -3.43% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 10 | C1 MTS* | 293.20 | 288.47 | -1.61% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 11 | T8-T9 MTS* | 309.20 | 306.17 | -0.98% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 12 | Inguinal MTS* | 327.30 | 324.84 | -0.75% | 100.00% | 99.80% |
| 13 | Left Hip | 326.70 | 326.70 | 0.00% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 14 | Abdomen MTS* | 343.40 | 343.09 | -0.09% | 99.8% | 99.70% |
| 15 | Mediastinum | 325.20 | 325.99 | 0.24% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 16 | Right Adrenal | 330.70 | 330.15 | -0.16% | 99.70% | 99.30% |
| 17 | Esophagus | 176.50 | 174.13 | -1.34% | 100.00% | 99.90% |
| 18 | Esophagus | 198.30 | 196.46 | -0.93% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 19 | Right Lung | 238.30 | 234.05 | -1.78% | 98.80% | 95.70% |
| 20 | Left Lung | 215.10 | 212.37 | -1.27% | 99.60% | 97.80% |
| 21 | Right Femur MTS* | 294.20 | 292.25 | -0.66% | 99.80% | 99.70% |
| 22 | Stomach | 320.90 | 319.90 | -0.31% | 98.60% | 97.10% |
| 23 | Bone MTS* | 312.90 | 310.67 | -0.71% | 99.60% | 98.90% |
| 24 | Esophagus | 204.20 | 196.70 | -3.68% | 99.40% | 99.00% |
| 24 | Left Breast | 294.40 | 286.40 | -2.72% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 26 | Spine MTS* | 318.10 | 312.72 | -1.69% | 100.00% | 99.80% |
| 27 | Bladder | 358.70 | 346.27 | -3.47% | 100.00% | 99.60% |
| 28 | Right Breast | 270.70 | 263.20 | -2.77% | 99.90% | 99.60% |
| 29 | Esophagus | 199.60 | 195.23 | -2.19% | 99.90% | 99.90% |
| 30 | Right Inguinal | 287.7 | 285.33 | -0.83% | 99.80% | 98.70% |
| 31 | Esophagus | 218.4 | 214.96 | -1.58% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 32 | T12 + Lumbar | 383.8 | 378.84 | -1.29% | 100.00% | 99.9% |
| 33 | Right Bone MTS* | 378.8 | 372.93 | -1.55% | 99.70% | 99.50% |
*MTS: Metastasis
Data Obtained with ArcCheck
The recommendations of TG-218 were followed using the 3%/2mm criterion and the current routine service criterion of 3%/3mm. For patients treated with 6 MV energy, the number of points that passed the gamma criterion ranged from 99.70% to 100.0% and from 99.50% to 100.0% for 3%/3mm and 3%/2mm, respectively (Table 1), with an average of 99.87% and 99.67%. For patients treated with 10 MV energy, the results ranged from 94.50% to 100.0% and from 93.00% to 100.0% for 3%/3mm and 3%/2mm, with an average of 99.60% and 98.90%, as shown in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
The reference dosimeter for quality control in radiotherapy is the ionization chamber, as recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 protocol. It is also suggested that the ionization chamber must be properly calibrated, as it is considered one of the most reliable methods for absolute dose measurements 17. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, with percentage differences smaller than 4% for both evaluated energies across all treatments, when comparing the data obtained with the ionization chamber and the TPS. However, the ionization chamber performs a single point measurement (1D), which may not be an adequate verification for radiotherapy techniques using dynamic arc. In light of this situation, the ArcCheck detector was implemented to evaluate dose delivery accuracy in three dimensions. Thus, dose matrices allow for three-dimensional dosimetry, making it a competent means to ensure patient-specific quality control 18. In this study, the dose distributions in the central plane of each treatment were compared for each patient, with the dose distributions obtained from ArcCheck and the TPS. From the percentage difference between the dose distributions for each patient, an average dose was obtained for all cases, resulting in a mean percentage difference of -0.58% ± 0.04. To visualize the relationship between the two variables, the concordance correlation coefficient was calculated between the dose measured by ArcCheck and the TPS, resulting in 0.99, as shown in Figure 3.
In relation to the gamma index, each dose point was measured and compared with the calculated dose, seeking an analogous dose within the defined criteria of 3%/3mm and 3%/2mm. The results obtained were consistent with TG-218 and TG-119 protocols, with an approval average higher than 98.0% for both energies, demonstrating excellent concordance. Through the gamma index, which is a useful tool for dosimetric verification, the TPS planning was compared with the data obtained with ArcCheck, showing that it is an adequate metric for evaluating dynamic arc plans. This study highlights the importance of developing a specific protocol for each institution, as the gamma index depends on treatment planning and setup, considering the type of dosimeter, detector resolution, TPS algorithm, linear accelerator configuration, and the clinical judgment of dose tolerance level, which also influence the outcome, as shown when using the evaluated criteria (3%/3mm and 3%/2mm).
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the efficacy and accuracy of the ArcCheck detector in implementing a patient-specific quality control technique for patients treated with the dynamic arc technique. The evaluation of 50 patients treated with 6 MV and 10 MV energies revealed a minimal average difference in the doses measured at the isocenter, with values of -0.96% and -1.34%, respectively. Additionally, the gamma analysis showed a high approval rate, above 98.0% for both energies, underscoring the reliability of ArcCheck in validating dose distributions. The consistency of these results with TG-119 and TG-218 protocols strongly supports the adoption of ArcCheck as an essential tool for quality control in specific radiotherapy treatments, ensuring the safe and precise delivery of ionizing radiation.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Medical Physics/Radiotherapy department at the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre and express their gratitude to Sun Nuclear for their collaboration in the use of ArcCheck.
REFERENCES
1. MARTINS PN . A brief history about radiotherapy. IJLRET. 2018 , [s. l.], v. 4, ed. 2, p. 8-11. https://zenodo.org/records/3824294. [ Links ]
2. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, Palta JR, Purdy JA, Reinstein LE, Svensson GK, Weller M, Wingfield L. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994; 21: 581-618. https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1118/1.597316 [ Links ]
3. Delgado JF, Vieira AMM, Cruz JC, Rodrigues LN. Cálculo independente de dose para tratamentos de arco dinâmico com colimador micromultilâminas. Radiol Bras. 2006 Sep;39(5). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-39842006000500011 [ Links ]
4. Menzel H-G. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas, 2014 14:1-2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru_ndx006 [ Links ]
5. Mariotti V, Gayol A, Pianoschi T, Mattea F, Vedelago J, Pérez P, Valente M, Alva-Sánchez M, Radiotherapy dosimetry parameters intercomparison among eight gel dosimeters by Monte Carlo simulation. Radiat Phys Chem. 2022; 190:109782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109782. [ Links ]
6. International Atomic Energy Agency. Aspectos físicos de la garantía de calidad en radioterapia: Protocolo de control de calidad. Technical Document No. 1151. Vienna. [Internet] IAEA [consultado el 22 de agosto del 2024]. Disponible en: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1151_prn.pdf [ Links ]
7. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, Li H, Wijesooriya K, Shi J, Xia P, Papanikolaou N, Low DA. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med. Phys. 2018;45:53-83. https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mp.12810. [ Links ]
8. Alva-Sánchez MS, Pianoschi TA. Study of the distribution of doses in tumors with hypoxia through the PENELOPE code, Radiat Phys Chem. 2020 167:108428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108428. [ Links ]
9. Alva-Sánchez MS, Pianoschi TA. 3D Dosimetric Tools in Radiotherapy for Photon Beams, Frontiers in Radiation Oncology. IntechOpen, Tejinder Rijeka, 2013, chapter 4, https://doi.org/10.5772/56348. [ Links ]
10. Das S, Kharade V, Pandey VP, Kv A, Pasricha RK, Gupta M. Gamma Index Analysis as a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience. Cureus. 2022 Oct 30;14(10):e30885. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9626372. [ Links ]
11. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S and Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Medical physics. 1998; 25: 656-61. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248 [ Links ]
12. Knill C, Synder M. An analysis of confidence limit calculations used in AAPM Task Group No. 119. Med. Phys. 2011, 38 (4): 1779-1784. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3560876 [ Links ]
13. Li G, Zhang Y, Jiang X, Bai S, Peng G, Wu K, Jiang Q. Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med. 2013 May;29(3):295-303. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.04.005. [ Links ]
14. Guzzi BF, Barcellos CH, Bertotti R V A, De Tarso DS, P., Barbosa J M, Ruggieri SA.. Avaliação da sensibilidade do ArcCHECK na detecção de erros de posicionamento do MLC. Revista Brasileira De Física Médica 2023; 17: 721. https://doi.org/10.29384/rbfm.2023.v17.1984900172 [ Links ]
15. Morrison CT, Symons KL, Woodings SJ, House MJ. Verification of junction dose between VMAT arcs of total body irradiation using a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Nov;18(6):177-182. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12208. [ Links ]
16. Nederlandse Commissie Voor Stralingsdosimetrie, Report 24 of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry. Code of Practice for the Quality Assurance and Control for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy [Internet].Netherland; 2015 [citado el 21 de agosto del 2024]. 65 p. https://radiationdosimetry.org/files/documents/0000087/245-ncsreport24vmatqa.pdf. [ Links ]
17. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of highenergy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(9):1847-70. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598691 [ Links ]
18. Templeton AK, Chu JC, Turian JV. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015 Jan 8;16(1):4814. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.4814 [ Links ]
8Article published by the Journal of the faculty of Human Medicine of the Ricardo Palma University. It is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creatvie Commons license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), that allows non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is duly cited. For commercial use, please contact revista.medicina@urp.edu.pe.
Received: August 23, 2024; Accepted: September 24, 2024
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
