Comparison of Gamma Pass Rate between the Dose-to-Water and Dose-to-Medium Reporting Modes for Patient-Specific QA Using a Helical Diode Array Dosimeter with a Fixed Phantom Density
Comparison of Gamma Pass Rate between the Dose-to-Water and Dose-to-Medium Reporting Modes for Patient-Specific QA Using a Helical Diode Array Dosimeter with a Fixed Phantom Density作者机构：Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto University Kyoto Japan Department of Information Technology and Medical Engineering Faculty of Human Health Science Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto University Kyoto Japan Division of Radiology Osaka Red Cross Hospital Osaka Japan Department of Radiation Therapy Osaka Red Cross Hospital Osaka Japan
出 版 物：《International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology》 (医学物理学、临床工程、放射肿瘤学（英文）)
年 卷 期：2018年第7卷第1期
页 面：74-86页
学科分类：1002[医学-临床医学] 100214[医学-肿瘤学] 10[医学]
主 题：Helical Diode Array Dosimeter Dose-to-Water Dose-to-Medium Gamma Pass Rate
摘 要：Introduction: To compare the measured dose distributions to calculated ones in dose-to-water (Dw) and dose-to-medium (Dm) reporting modes for simple plans and patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using ArcCHECK with a fixed phantom density. Methods: The recommended density value of 1.18 g/cm3 for Acuros XB and X-ray voxel Monte Carlo was assigned to ArcCHECK on CT images. A total of 45 simple plans, including a 1-field plan, a 3-field plan, a 4-field plan, a half-arc plan from 270° to 90°, and a full-arc plan, were assessed. Subsequently, the patient-specific 96 IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated. Gamma analysis with a 3% normalized global dose error and a 3 mm distance-to-agreement criteria (γ3%G/3mm) was performed in the Dw and Dm. The change in γ3%G/3mm between Dw and Dm were statistically analyzed using JMPPro11 software. Results: The median values of γ3%G/3mm for all simple plans for Dw and Dm were 98.1% (range, 75.2% - 100%) and 95.5% (range, 23.7% - 100%), respectively (p 0.01). In the patient-specific IMRT and VMAT plans, the median values of γ3%G/3mm for Dw and Dm were 98.6% (range, 90.1% - 100%) and 90.5% (range, 38.5% - 97.2%), respectively (p 0.01). Conclusion: Our results showed that the calculated and measured dose distributions were in good agreement for Dw, but were not for Dm. From the viewpoint of the rationale of dosimetry, Dw shows better agreement with measured dose distribution when using the fixedphantom density recommended by the vendor.
维普期刊数据库