Quick Search:

uzh logo
Browse by:
bullet
bullet
bullet
bullet

Zurich Open Repository and Archive 

Lang, S; Hrbacek, J; klöck, S; Reggiori, G; Puxeu Vaqueee, J; Calle, C; scorsetti, M; Coozi, L; Mancosu, P (2012). Pretreatment quality assurance of flattening filter free beams on 224 patients for intensity modulated plans: a multicentric study. Medical Physics, 39(3):1351-1356.

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Abstract
PURPOSE: Pretreatment quality assurance data from four centers, members of the European TrueBeam council were analyzed with different verification devices to assess reliability of flattening filter free beam delivery for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) techniques.
METHODS: TrueBeam(®) (Varian Medical System) is a new linear accelerator designed for delivering flattened, as well as flattening filter free beams. Pretreatment dosimetric validation of plan delivery was performed with different verification devices and responses to high dose rates were tested. Treatment planning was done in Eclipse planning system (PRO 8.9, AAA 8.9). γ evaluation was performed with (dose difference) = 3% and (distance to agreement) = 3 mm scoring the gamma agreement index (GAI, % of field area passing the test). Two hundred and twenty-four patients with 1-6 lesions in various anatomical regions and dose per fraction ranging from 1.8 Gy to 25 Gy were included in the study; 88 were treated with 6 MV flattening filter free (X6FFF) beam energy and 136 with 10 MV flattening filter free (X10FFF) beam. Gafchromic films in solid water, delta(4), arccheck, and matrixx phantom were used to verify the dose distributions. Additionally, point measurements were performed using a PinPoint chamber and a Farmer chamber.
RESULTS: Dose calculation as well as dose delivery was equally accurate for IMRT and RA delivery (IMRT: GAI = 99.3% (±1.1); RA: GAI = 98.8% (±1.1) as well as for the two beams evaluated (X6FFF: GAI = 99.1% (±1.0); X10FFF: GAI = 98.8% (±1.2). Only small differences were found for the four verification devices. A point dose verification was performed on 52 cases, obtaining a dose deviation of 0.34%. The GAI variations with number of monitor units were statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The TrueBeam FFF modality, analyzed with a variety of verification devices and planned with Eclipse planning system is dosimetrically accurate (within the specified limits 3 mm/3%) for both X6FFF and X10FFF beam energy.

Item Type:Journal Article, not refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Radiation Oncology
DDC:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2012
Deposited On:23 Aug 2012 13:45
Last Modified:27 Nov 2013 18:00
Publisher:American Association of Physicists in Medicine
ISSN:0094-2405
Publisher DOI:10.1118/1.3685461
PubMed ID:22380368
Citations:Web of Science®. Times Cited: 8
Google Scholar™

Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item

Repository Staff Only: item control page