A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms
The aim of this study was to develop and apply an evaluation method for assessing the accuracy of a novel 3D EPID back-projection algorithm for in vivo dosimetry. The novel algorithm of Dosimetry Check (DC) 5.8 was evaluated. A slab phantom homogeneously filled, or with air and bone inserts, was use...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-11-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/22/10715 |
| _version_ | 1797511376142336000 |
|---|---|
| author | Marco Esposito Livia Marrazzo Eleonora Vanzi Serenella Russo Stefania Pallotta Cinzia Talamonti |
| author_facet | Marco Esposito Livia Marrazzo Eleonora Vanzi Serenella Russo Stefania Pallotta Cinzia Talamonti |
| author_sort | Marco Esposito |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The aim of this study was to develop and apply an evaluation method for assessing the accuracy of a novel 3D EPID back-projection algorithm for in vivo dosimetry. The novel algorithm of Dosimetry Check (DC) 5.8 was evaluated. A slab phantom homogeneously filled, or with air and bone inserts, was used for fluence reconstruction of different squared fields. VMAT plans in different anatomical sites were delivered on an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose distributions were measured with radiochromic films. The 2D Gamma Agreement Index (GAI) between the DC and the film dose distributions (3%, 3 mm) was computed for assessing the accuracy of the algorithm. GAIs between films and TPS and between DC and TPS were also computed. The fluence reconstruction accuracy was within 2% for all squared fields in the three slabs’ configurations. The GAI between the DC and the film was 92.7% in the prostate, 92.9% in the lung, 96.6% in the head and the neck, and 94.6% in the brain. An evaluation method for assessing the accuracy of a novel EPID algorithm was developed. The DC algorithm was shown to be able to accurately reconstruct doses in all anatomic sites, including the lung. The methodology described in the present study can be applied to any EPID back-projection in vivo algorithm. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T05:44:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a72670be21734895998a2df0978e1ed9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3417 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T05:44:25Z |
| publishDate | 2021-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-a72670be21734895998a2df0978e1ed92023-11-22T22:17:50ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172021-11-0111221071510.3390/app112210715A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry AlgorithmsMarco Esposito0Livia Marrazzo1Eleonora Vanzi2Serenella Russo3Stefania Pallotta4Cinzia Talamonti5Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, 50100 Florence, ItalyMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, 50100 Florence, ItalyMedical Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, 53100 Siena, ItalyMedical Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, 50100 Florence, ItalyMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, 50100 Florence, ItalyMedical Physics Unit, Careggi University Hospital, 50100 Florence, ItalyThe aim of this study was to develop and apply an evaluation method for assessing the accuracy of a novel 3D EPID back-projection algorithm for in vivo dosimetry. The novel algorithm of Dosimetry Check (DC) 5.8 was evaluated. A slab phantom homogeneously filled, or with air and bone inserts, was used for fluence reconstruction of different squared fields. VMAT plans in different anatomical sites were delivered on an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose distributions were measured with radiochromic films. The 2D Gamma Agreement Index (GAI) between the DC and the film dose distributions (3%, 3 mm) was computed for assessing the accuracy of the algorithm. GAIs between films and TPS and between DC and TPS were also computed. The fluence reconstruction accuracy was within 2% for all squared fields in the three slabs’ configurations. The GAI between the DC and the film was 92.7% in the prostate, 92.9% in the lung, 96.6% in the head and the neck, and 94.6% in the brain. An evaluation method for assessing the accuracy of a novel EPID algorithm was developed. The DC algorithm was shown to be able to accurately reconstruct doses in all anatomic sites, including the lung. The methodology described in the present study can be applied to any EPID back-projection in vivo algorithm.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/22/10715in vivo dosimetryEPIDend-to-end testanthropomorphic phantom |
| spellingShingle | Marco Esposito Livia Marrazzo Eleonora Vanzi Serenella Russo Stefania Pallotta Cinzia Talamonti A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms Applied Sciences in vivo dosimetry EPID end-to-end test anthropomorphic phantom |
| title | A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms |
| title_full | A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms |
| title_fullStr | A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms |
| title_short | A Validation Method for EPID In Vivo Dosimetry Algorithms |
| title_sort | validation method for epid in vivo dosimetry algorithms |
| topic | in vivo dosimetry EPID end-to-end test anthropomorphic phantom |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/22/10715 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marcoesposito avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT liviamarrazzo avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT eleonoravanzi avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT serenellarusso avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT stefaniapallotta avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT cinziatalamonti avalidationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT marcoesposito validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT liviamarrazzo validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT eleonoravanzi validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT serenellarusso validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT stefaniapallotta validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms AT cinziatalamonti validationmethodforepidinvivodosimetryalgorithms |