Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi · 2024
[Estimation of Uncertainty of the VMAT Absolute Dose Measurement Due to the Phantom Setup Error Using a Treatment Planning System].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mizoguchi Tadahiro, Tameshige Yuji, Kaneda Tatsuya, Ogawa Yoshiji, Muranaka Yoshiyuki, Tamamura Hiroyasu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: When performing single-point dose verification in VMAT, it is necessary to avoid the regions with steep dose gradient. We propose a method to obtain the estimated value ( Uplan) of uncertainty of the absolute dose measurement due to the phantom setup error by using dose gradient calculated from treatment planning system (TPS), for evaluating the appropriate measurement points.
METHODS: The dose gradient was calculated from the planned dose values in the vicinity of the isocenter point using TPS. The phantom setup error was estimated. The Uplan was calculated using the proposed formula after estimating the phantom setup error. Then, the dose gradient was calculated from the measured dose values in the vicinity of the isocenter point specified by TPS using the Tough water phantom with ionization chamber (IC), and Umeas was calculated as in Uplan.
RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between Uplan and Umeas was 0.984, which indicates a high correlation. The average of the difference between Umeas and Uplan was -0.24%. We considered that this result was caused by the influence of volume averaging effect of IC.
CONCLUSION: The Uplan obtained from this proposed method reflects the uncertainty of the absolute dose measurement due to the phantom setup error and is useful for evaluating the appropriate measurement points for absolute dose measurement.
METHODS: The dose gradient was calculated from the planned dose values in the vicinity of the isocenter point using TPS. The phantom setup error was estimated. The Uplan was calculated using the proposed formula after estimating the phantom setup error. Then, the dose gradient was calculated from the measured dose values in the vicinity of the isocenter point specified by TPS using the Tough water phantom with ionization chamber (IC), and Umeas was calculated as in Uplan.
RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between Uplan and Umeas was 0.984, which indicates a high correlation. The average of the difference between Umeas and Uplan was -0.24%. We considered that this result was caused by the influence of volume averaging effect of IC.
CONCLUSION: The Uplan obtained from this proposed method reflects the uncertainty of the absolute dose measurement due to the phantom setup error and is useful for evaluating the appropriate measurement points for absolute dose measurement.