Sensitivity evaluation of two commercial dosimeters in detecting Helical TomoTherapy treatment delivery errors

Authors

Shrikant Deshpande, University of WollongongFollow
Mark Geurts, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Philip J. Vial, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy CentresFollow
Peter E. Metcalfe, University of WollongongFollow
Lois C. Holloway, University of WollongongFollow

RIS ID

114244

Publication Details

Deshpande, S., Geurts, M., Vial, P., Metcalfe, P. & Holloway, L. (2017). Sensitivity evaluation of two commercial dosimeters in detecting Helical TomoTherapy treatment delivery errors. Physica Medica: an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology, 37 68-74.

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the sensitivity of two commercial dosimetry systems in detecting Helical TomoTherapy (HT) delivery errors.

Method

Two commercial dosimeters i) MatriXX^Evolution and ii) ArcCHECK® were considered. Ten retrospective nasopharynx HT patients were analysed. For each patient, error plans were created by independently introducing systematic offsets in: a) Jaw width error ±1, ±1.5 and ±2 mm, b) Couch speed error ±2%, ±2.5, ±3% and ±4%, and c) MLC Leaf Open Time (MLCLOT) errors (3 separate MLC errors: either leaf 32 open or leaf 42 remains open during delivery, and 4% random reductions in MLCLOT). All error plans, along with the no error plan for each patient, were measured using both dosimeters in the same session. Gamma evaluation (3%/3 mm) was applied to quantitatively compare the measured dose from each dosimeter to the treatment planning system. The error sensitivity was quantified as the rate of decrease in gamma pass rate.

Results

The gamma pass rate decreases with increase in error magnitude for both dosimeters. ArcCHECK was insensitive for couch speed error up to 2.5% and jaw width error up to −1.5 mm while MatriXX^Evolution was found to be insensitive to couch speed error up to 2% and couch speed up to −1 mm. Both of the detectors show similar sensitivity to all the MLCLOT errors that were clinically relevant.

Conclusion

No statistically significant (p > 0.05) differences exist in detecting the simulated delivery errors between MatriXX^Evolution and ArcCHECK dosimeter systems for HT plans. Both dosimeters were able to pick up clinically relevant delivery errors.