摘要
Purpose: We performed both, dosimetric and positional accuracy verification of dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with the Vero4DRT system using a moving phantom (QUASAR respiratory motion platform;QUASAR phantom) and system log files. Methods: The QUASAR phantom was placed on a treatment couch. Measurement of the point dose and dose distribution was performed for conventional IMRT, with the QUASAR phantom static and moving;for DTT IMRT, this was performed with the phantom moving for pyramid shaped, prostate, paranasal sinus, and pancreas targets. The QUASAR phantom was driven by a sinusoidal signal in the superior-inferior direction. Furthermore, predicted positional errors induced by the Vero4DRT system and mechanical positional errors of the gimbal head, were calculated using the system log files. Results and Conclusion: For DTT IMRT, the dose at the evaluation point was within 3% compared with the verification plan, and the dose distribution in the passing rates of γ was 97.9%, with the criteria of 3% dose and 3 mm distance to agreement. The position error calculated from the log files was within 2 mm, suggesting the feasibility of employing DTT IMRT with high accuracy using the Vero4DRT system.
Purpose: We performed both, dosimetric and positional accuracy verification of dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with the Vero4DRT system using a moving phantom (QUASAR respiratory motion platform;QUASAR phantom) and system log files. Methods: The QUASAR phantom was placed on a treatment couch. Measurement of the point dose and dose distribution was performed for conventional IMRT, with the QUASAR phantom static and moving;for DTT IMRT, this was performed with the phantom moving for pyramid shaped, prostate, paranasal sinus, and pancreas targets. The QUASAR phantom was driven by a sinusoidal signal in the superior-inferior direction. Furthermore, predicted positional errors induced by the Vero4DRT system and mechanical positional errors of the gimbal head, were calculated using the system log files. Results and Conclusion: For DTT IMRT, the dose at the evaluation point was within 3% compared with the verification plan, and the dose distribution in the passing rates of γ was 97.9%, with the criteria of 3% dose and 3 mm distance to agreement. The position error calculated from the log files was within 2 mm, suggesting the feasibility of employing DTT IMRT with high accuracy using the Vero4DRT system.
