Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords
Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords
Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35(4): 178-204
Published online December 31, 2024
https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.178
Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.
Dongyeon Lee1,2 , Sung Jin Kim2
, Wonjoong Cheon3
, Hyosung Cho1
, Youngyih Han2,4
Correspondence to:Youngyih Han
(youngyih@skku.edu)
Tel: 82-2-3410-2604
Fax: 82-2-3410-2619
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: Modern radiotherapy delivers radiation doses to targets within a few minutes using intricate multiple-beam segments determined with multi-leaf collimators (MLC). Therefore, we propose a scintillator-based dosimetry system capable of assessing the dosimetric and mechanical performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in real time.
Methods: The dosimeter was equipped with a scintillator plate and two digital cameras. The dose distribution was generated by applying deep learning-based signal processing to correct the intrinsic characteristics of the camera sensor and a tomographic image reconstruction technique to rectify the geometric distortion of the recorded video. Dosimetric evaluations were performed using a gamma analysis against a two-dimensional array and radiochromic film measurements for 20 clinical cases. The average difference in the MLC position measurements and machine log files was tested for the applicability of the mechanical quality assurance (QA) of MLCs.
Results: The agreement of the dose distribution in the IMRT and VMAT plans was clinically acceptable between the proposed system and conventional dosimeters. The average differences in the MLC positions for the IMRT/VMAT plans were 1.7010/2.8107 mm and 1.4722/2.7713 mm in banks A and B, respectively.
Conclusions: In this study, we developed an instantaneously interpretable real-time dosimeter for QA in a medical linear accelerator using a scintillator plate and digital cameras. The feasibility of the proposed system was investigated using dosimetric and mechanical evaluations in the IMRT and VMAT plans. The developed system has clinically acceptable accuracy in both the dosimetric and mechanical QAs of the IMRT and VMAT plans.
KeywordsDosimeter, Real-time, Deep learning, Dose rate, Multi-leaf collimators
Modern radiotherapy techniques allow normal tissues to receive a minimal dose of radiation while maintaining a prescription dose conformal to the target volume. Specifically, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) [1] and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) [2] deliver radiation doses to a target within a few minutes using intricate multiple beam segments determined with jaw and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). The combination of multiple beam segments allows the radiation dose to be more focused on the target as compared with the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) [3-5]; however, the complexity of dose modulation in IMRT and VMAT requires a more suffocating validation process as compared with 3DCRT [6-8]. Therefore, the task group (TG) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has published reports on the patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of IMRT and VMAT plans; these reports have been widely adopted by radiation therapy institutes to reduce the uncertainty of IMRT and VMAT [9-11].
Patient-specific QA can be performed by comparing the measured dose distributions with the dose map computed from the treatment planning system (TPS). According to a recent survey, 80.6% of the sites responded that they conducted patient-specific QA with planar measurements to verify the delivered dose [12]. Planar dosimetry can be performed using a radiochromic film, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), a two-dimensional (2D) diode array, and a 2D ionization chamber array. Radiochromic films have advantages, including a high spatial resolution and convenience of employment [13]. However, they cannot be reused and are unsuitable for real-time dosimetry because of the saturation time required to stabilize the discoloration [14]. The EPID has shown potential to replace film dosimetry [15,16]. Generally, dosimetry using the EPID was performed by applying the water dose conversion to the acquired radiograph image [17-21], and the properties of the EPID allowed performance of the machine-independent measurements. However, the instability in dosimetry has been presented, since the EPID was originally designed for imaging applications. Furthermore, structural limitations, including increased non-uniform backscatter due to the supporting arm, caused a non-linear response to radiation [22-24].
The continuously varying dose rates of VMAT allows the MLC to be modulated at a high speed such that the delivery time of VMAT is shorter than that of IMRT. Additionally, a continuously varying dose rate contributes to improved beam flatness and stability as compared to a fixed dose rate [25]. However, the high speed of the MLC increases the positioning errors of leaves [26,27]; therefore, the instant dose rate and accuracy of the MLC position are important components of VMAT quality.
A scintillator plate-based dosimeter with a camera was first developed in 1980 by Baily et al. [28] and improved by Boon et al. [29] for the direct measurement of the radiation dose in a water phantom. The characteristics of the scintillator with respect to linearity, repeatability, and stability were evaluated, and its feasibility as a dosimeter was proved [30]. Camera image sensors, including complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOSs) and charge-coupled devices (CCDs), are damaged when the camera is in the radiation field, which can increase the dark current and hot pixels in the captured image [31-33]. Thus, in the conventional scintillator dosimeter, the camera was mounted on the side and a mirror was installed to protect the image sensor from the primary beam and prevent geometric distortion of the recorded image by reflecting the scintillation [34-37]. However, the built-in mirror increased the dosimeter volume, and the commercial scintillator dosimeter, for example, Lynx PT (IBA Dosimetry) has dimensions of 360×370×600 mm3. Although the accessibility of scintillator dosimeters is limited due to their excessive volume, recent advances in signal processing, which enable cameras to capture images with a high temporal resolution, have shown promise as verification devices for VMAT [38].
In the present study, we developed a mirror-less real-time scintillator dosimeter for the QA of a medical linear accelerator (LINAC), specifically for IMRT and VMAT plans, which can detect the varying dose rates of delivering beams. In this article, the IMRT was defined as a plan with a static MLC during beam delivery, whereas the VMAT was defined as a plan with a dynamic MLC. The dosimeter was composed of a scintillator plate and two CMOS-based cameras without a mirror. The proposed system was capable of measuring the dose distributions at 60 frames per second (FPS), which corresponds to a sampling rate of 16.67 ms. The high temporal resolution provided a function for interpreting the instantaneously modulated dose distribution in the media. Specifically, the proposed system performed a real-time analysis of VMAT, which could predict the dose rates of the LINAC and track the MLC positions in multiple beam segments through highly sampled dose maps. Removing the mirror improved the usability by reducing the weight to 4.08 kg. The characteristics of the developed system were analyzed and the dosimetric and mechanical performance were verified.
The proposed dosimeter was composed of a scintillator plate and two digital cameras with CMOS image sensors in an aluminum-frame-based dark box (Fig. 1). A scintillator plate was placed on the top of the dark box, and two digital cameras were installed at the bottom, tilted to face the scintillator plate. Both cameras had the same tilting angle of 57°. The dosimeter had a volume of 316×606×306 mm3 and a weight of 4.08 kg. All sides of the dosimeter were covered with a black paper to block the external light.
The PI-200 (Mitsubishi Chemical) set on top of the dark box was a flat-plate-type inorganic scintillator with a size of 300×300×0.9 mm3. It includes three layers of protective phosphor and supporting materials. The phosphor layer was composed of terbium-doped gadolinium oxysulfide, which is widely used in medical imaging systems.
A DSC-RX100M7 (Sony Group Corp.) digital camera recorded the emitted light from the scintillator plate (volume of 42.8×101.6×58.1 mm3 and a weight of 302 g). The recorded video had high-resolution images with pixel dimensions of 1,920×1,080 and a frame rate of 60 FPS, equivalent to 16.67 ms in a single frame. The cameras were operated using remote controllers during irradiation. After recording, the video from the two digital cameras was transmitted to a computer for signal processing, as described below.
The light emitted from the scintillator was recorded by a camera using a CMOS image sensor. The main peak in the spectrum of the emitted scintillation was approximately at 530 nm, and the recorded videos are mainly presented in green. Therefore, we performed signal processing using the green channel of the recorded video to convert the recorded video into a dose map. Fig. 2 shows the signal processing of the proposed dosimeter system.
First, when the recorded video was input, the video was summed along the frames, and a threshold value was applied to the summed video to obtain a beam signal. Thereafter, the masks of the radiation fields were extracted from the video of the IMRT and VMAT plans through segment and control point (CP)-based processing, respectively. Given that IMRT and VMAT have different mechanisms of dose delivery, we divided the signal processing in two ways. Specifically, the recorded video of the IMRT was disturbed by aliasing between the frame rate of the camera and the fixed beam pulse rate of the LINAC in each segment. Therefore, we applied an iterative Fourier transform (FT)-based aliasing correction to the recorded IMRT video before mask extraction. A detailed description is provided in Section “Iterative Fourier transform-based aliasing correction”. Thereafter, the IMRT mask was generated after applying a threshold of 0.45 to the normalized segment image. The threshold value for the IMRT video mask extraction was selected empirically. The segmented image was acquired by accumulating the video frames recorded at each subfield of the IMRT plan. Fig. 3a shows an example of the recorded video images and the extracted masks from a single segment of the IMRT plan. However, VMAT modulates the radiation doses with consecutively varying radiation fields built from the jaw and MLC, and it is controlled in the LINAC through CPs. The recorded video of the VMAT plan had a different radiation field in each frame corresponding to a CP. However, a single frame of the VMAT plan recording includes grain noises because of the high international organization for standardization (ISO) value setting of the digital cameras [39,40], whereas the recorded video from the IMRT plan was free from grain noises due to the accumulated frames. Consequently, the mask generated by applying a threshold to a single frame of the VMAT plan was incompletely binarized, as shown in Fig. 3b. Therefore, we applied deep learning-based mask extraction to the VMAT plan’s recorded video to overcome this limitation. The details of the deep learning-based mask extraction of the VMAT are described in Section “Video mask extraction of the VMAT plan”.
After the mask extraction, a signal correction was applied to the video image. Camera image sensors, including CMOS and CCD, have intrinsic sensitivity to brightness according to the ISO value. The sensitivity of the camera sensor to a certain ISO value is indicated by an S-shaped curve for the dynamic range of light [41,42]. Generally, camera sensors with higher ISO values respond to photons more quickly as compared to those with lower ISO values. Therefore, cameras in dark environments often use high ISO value settings. In the present study, an ISO value of 12,800 was adopted to record the light of the scintillator plate in a dark box. However, because of the intrinsic response of the camera sensor to brightness, the output factors for several radiation field sizes measured with the proposed dosimeter were different from the reference values measured by the ionization chamber (CC13; IBA Dosimetry), as shown in Fig. 4. The output factor of the proposed dosimeter before the signal correction was observed to increase sharply as compared to that of the reference in large-sized radiation fields.
A cubic function-based correction curve was employed in the recorded video to mitigate the discrepancy between the camera and ionization chamber measurements. The output factor is dependent on the size of the radiation field; thus, we computed the equivalent field size (
where
Thereafter, the correction curve was estimated using a cubic function based on the curve fitting function of MATLAB (R2021a, MathWorks), and the computed radiation field size from the extracted mask and output factor ratio of the reference to the measurement were used as the input parameters. The output factor correction was performed using the equivalent field size for each frame of the recorded video. The setup had a source-axis distance of 100 cm to a 5-cm deep solid water phantom, where the signal correction curve was estimated. The distributions under different setup conditions from the aforementioned state can be measured after applying signal correction, which is calculated under the setup condition to be observed.
The proposed dosimeter required space under the scintillator plate to capture the light produced as a result of the interaction between the scintillator material and radiation. This structural design makes it difficult to ensure the contribution of the backscatter generated from the materials behind the scintillator plate. Generally, a backscatter thickness of ≥6 cm is required for a 6-MV photon beam [43,44]. However, the signal correction of the proposed system was used to rectify every error caused by the camera sensor and structural limitations, including the backscattering deficiency. After the signal correction, a geometric correction was performed to recover the distortion caused by the position of the digital cameras. The details of the geometric correction are described in Section “Iterative reconstruction technique-based geometric correction”.
The prescribed signal processing procedure for the IMRT and VMAT plans are summarized in Fig. 2.
The proposed dosimeter system corrected the output factor errors using the correction curve based on the estimated size of the radiation field from the mask. Thus, it is important to acquire the exact mask of the radiation field from the recorded video images. However, the VMAT plan’s recorded video had a limitation in mask generation using the thresholding method, as described in Section “Video mask extraction of the VMAT plan”. Recently, image processing based on deep learning has demonstrated outstanding performance in the medical field, including image segmentation [45,46]. In particular, the usability of the UNet-based mask extractor has been proven [47]. However, the enlarged receptive field of UNet with pooling layers can lose the details of an image presented at a high frequency [48,49]. Therefore, we applied a cycleGAN-based mask extractor [50-52] to the VMAT plan’s recorded videos.
A simplified diagram of the cycleGAN-based VMAT mask extraction algorithm is shown in Fig. 6. In the proposed algorithm, the cycleGAN model included the following two trainable components: generators and discriminators. The generators and discriminators of cycleGAN work complementarily to achieve convergence during the training process. The generator was trained to produce fake images by reflecting the relationship between the masks (
The proposed network was trained with the video images of the IMRT plans and masks were calculated from the digital imaging and communication in medicine of radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) files generated by the TPS (Eclipse ver. 15.5; Varian Medical Systems) at Samsung Medical Center. Generally, the DICOM-RT file includes geometric and dosimetric data specifying the course of radiotherapy, such as the beam angles, collimator openings, and beam modifiers. Therefore, the jaw and MLC positions can be specified from the DICOM-RT file. After extracting the positions of the jaw and MLC, the MLC mask can be generated by calculation using the geometric properties of the medical LINAC. A video mask for training the cycleGAN-based mask extraction algorithm was produced by applying the forward projecting operator (
We used an X-ray beam with an energy of 6 MV from a me­dical LINAC (TrueBeam STx; Varian Medical Systems) at various dose rates. The dose rate was defined as the monitor unit (MU) per minute of the medical LINAC. In general, the dose per pulse of a medical LINAC is constant, and the dose rate is varied by modifying the beam pulse rate [55,56]. The TrueBeam STx used in this study has a beam pulse rate of 60 Hz at a dose rate of 100 MU/min. The beam pulse frequency was sequentially increased to 120 Hz at 200 MU/min, 180 Hz at 300 MU/min, 240 Hz at 400 MU/min, 300 Hz at 500 MU/min, and 360 Hz at 600 MU/min. Therefore, we set the camera frame rate to 60 FPS to cover all configurable dose rates in the TrueBeam STx. The scintillation signal input to the camera can be periodically attenuated owing to the sampling frequency of the image sensor, as shown in Fig. 7a, which is referred to as aliasing [57]. As a result, the signal from a single frame had a linear relationship with the dose rate; however, the dose rate response of the accumulated frames was indicated differently even when the same dose was irradiated. (Fig. 7b) Thus, we applied an iterative FT-based aliasing correction method to the IMRT signals, as shown in Fig. 8. First, the signal from the IMRT was
where the initial
Finally, the corrected signal was obtained by applying an inverse FT to
Generally, the VMAT delivers the radiation with a continuously variable dose rate during the beam-on time, and the continuously variable dose rate can be indicated as a multi-band signal. The measured signals at different dose rates of the IMRT, including aliasing (Fig. 7a), had low frequencies, and these were negligible at continuously variable beam pulse rates. Therefore, we applied the FT-based aliasing correction step only to the IMRT plans.
The side-positioned cameras caused geometric distortions, including prospective distortions, owing to the tilting angles, as shown in Fig. 9a. Thus, we applied an iterative reconstruction technique (IRT) to the recorded video, allowing geometric distortion to be corrected, even in wide radiation fields. First, we assumed that the proposed dosimeter was a digital tomosynthesis model, as shown in Fig. 9b. Generally, computed tomography (CT) systems can be restored using IRT, a mathematical process that generates tomographic images from the projection data acquired at many different angles with repetitive calculation. In this study, we applied a fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (FISTA) [58] to correct the geometric distortion of the proposed dosimeter. The details of the parameters used in the IRT-based geometric correction are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Parameters used in the IRT-based geometric correction for dosimetric and mechanical QA
Parameter | Dosimetric QA | Mechanical QA |
---|---|---|
Source-to-detector distance (mm) | 543.72 | 543.72 |
Source-to-object distance (mm) | 357.71 | 357.71 |
No. of projections | 2 | 2 |
Pixel size (mm) | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Pixel dimension | 1,920×1,080 | 1,920×1,080 |
Voxel size (mm) | 1 | 0.1 |
Voxel dimension | 300×300 | 3,000×3,000 |
Reconstruction algorithm | FISTA | FISTA |
The mathematical settings for the description of the FISTA framework in a general CT system were prepared as follows. The original image vector to be reconstructed (
where
Using these definitions, the measurement equation is described as follows:
The linear equation Eq. (4) has an infinite solution under the condition
where
where
The convex optimization problem described in Eq. (9) can be solved approximately but efficiently using the accelerated proximal gradient descent method [59,60]. In the CT reconstruction process, the system matrix is repeatedly expanded to calculate the forward and backward projections in each iteration loop.
The conventional system matrix (
where
where
The dose maps measured by the developed dosimeter were built from the jaw and MLC of the LINAC. Traditionally, the radiation field size is defined as the 50% isodose line of the beam profiles at the maximum dose. The MLC positions in the measured dose maps can be predicted using the binarized mask after applying a simple threshold, as shown in Fig. 10.
Thresholding-based mask extraction for the prediction of the MLC position in VMAT plans was unable to produce binary images similar to the real MLC position maps because of the increased noise in a single frame, as shown in Fig. 11. Therefore, we applied wavelet-assisted UNet (WaveUNet) to generate MLC masks from the reconstructed CP dose images (Fig. 12).
A single scale of the 2D discrete wavelet transform without a diagonal detail [62] was applied to the reconstructed CP dose images before being feedforward to the network. The input wavelet-transformed images were downsized through the pooling layers in the encoding part of the WaveUNet and upsized through the unpooling layers in the decoding part. The WaveUNet includes a shortcut connection indicated by dotted arrows in Fig. 12 to include features of the encoding part in the decoding part, as a conventional UNet model [47]. The WaveUNet model was then optimized using the binary cross-entropy loss function (
where
Given that the developed system measured the absolute dose distributions at a high sampling rate, the dose rate of the LINAC was predictable. The proposed dosimeter measured the dose distribution every 16.67 ms during the beam-on time. First, instantaneous doses were extracted from all the frames recorded during the beam-on time. The LINAC dose rate was then estimated after applying compensation for the measured dose rates. X-rays were delivered from the LINAC during the beam-on time at a constant dose rate; however, the measured dose rates were different because the radiation field sizes and doses were modulated by the jaw and MLCs. Thus, the dose rate of the LINAC was estimated after applying compensation to the instantaneous doses. In the signal correction process, we acquired the reference output factors using the ionization chamber and the equivalent radiation field sizes computed from the extracted video masks. The compensation process was performed by dividing the instantaneous doses by the calculated output factors from the function derived from the computed field sizes and output factors. The predicted LINAC dose rates from the developed dosimeter were compared with those calculated from the TrueBeam trajectory log files.
In a previous study, an image registration technique was applied to correct the geometric distortion of a scintillator dosimeter using a single camera [64]. The registration-based correction method restored the geometric distortion of the recorded video image by applying the affine transformation, including shear. The registration method was applied to the dual camera-based proposed system to compare the accuracy of the geometric distortion correction with that of the IRT-based method. The IRT-based method used to correct the geometric distortion derived from tilted cameras is widely used in CT reconstruction. Video images from the two cameras were used to reconstruct the dose distribution image of the developed dosimeter, which corresponds to two projection data points in the tomographic system. The other reconstruction algorithms for the analytical and iterative methods were implemented for comparison. Filtered back projection (FBP) and maximum-likelihood estimation–maximization (MLEM) [65] were used as the analytic and iterative methods, respectively, for the comparison of the reconstruction algorithms. The correction of the geometric distortion in the developed dosimeter employing the tomographic image reconstruction technique was performed using a MATLAB code accelerated by a graphic processing unit for fast calculation [66].
The proposed dosimeter system was evaluated in terms of its general, dosimetric, and mechanical performances. The output factor, linearity, and dose-rate dependency were assessed using general performance tests. In the output factor test, we exposed 105 MU equivalent to 100 cGy with field sizes of 3×3, 5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2. The linearity of the developed dosimeter was evaluated using a field size of 10×10 cm2 and delivered doses of 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 cGy. A fixed dose rate of 400 MU/min was used for the output factor and linearity tests. The reference values for the output factor and linearity test were measured using an ionization chamber (CC13). The dose-rate dependency of the proposed system was observed by irradiating X-ray beams with a dose of 300 cGy and dose rates of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 MU/min. In the dose-rate dependency test, the EBT3 film (Ashland) was used as a reference to minimize any influence associated with the sampling frequency issue caused by the digitized dosimeters.
The commercial gamma analysis software (RIT113 ver. 6.2; Radiological Imaging Technology Inc.) was used to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the proposed dosimeter [67,68]. The gamma passing rate was computed to quantify the coincidence between the dose distribution measured by the dosimeter and the dose map acquired from conventional dosimeters, such as a 2D array dosimeter and radiochromic film. The 2D array dosimeter was chosen as it was the sole option capable of instantaneously capturing the modulated dose distributions from the VMAT plans. The IMRT and VMAT plans were generated from 10 clinical cases with five different treatment sites (i.e., brain, head and neck, lung, abdomen, and pelvis); therefore, a total of 20 plans were used in the present study. Given that the proposed system measured the dose distribution by placing the dosimeter on the couch, the clinical plans were recalculated through TPS under the condition of delivering doses from a fixed gantry and collimator set at zero degrees. Specifically, recalculation of the clinical plans to a phantom was performed after anonymizing the individual patient data.
The 2D array dosimeter (MatriXX ResolutionTM; IBA Dosimetry) measured the dose distribution with a pixel spacing of 6.5 mm. The active measurement area of the MatriXX ResolutionTM was 247×247 mm2, and the measured dose map had a resolution of 39×39 pixel. Therefore, we applied linear interpolation to expand the resolution of the MatriXX ResolutionTM dose map to 247×247 with a pixel size of 1×1 mm2. The dose distribution measurement using MatriXX ResolutionTM was performed at a sampling rate of 20 ms to verify the real-time dosimetric performance of the proposed system. For the EBT3 film analysis, digitization was performed with the 75-dots-per-inch scanning option using a 11000XL EPSON flatbed scanner (EPSON). Given that the dose map measured by the proposed dosimeter had a different image size as compared to that of MatriXX ResolutionTM, the dose map of the proposed system was cropped to 247×247. Furthermore, the scanned EBT3 film was rescaled to have a uniform resolution as the dose map of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. Thereafter, co-registration, including image rotation, was applied between the dose map of the proposed system and the measurements of MatriXX ResolutionTM and EBT3 film. Finally, a gamma analysis was performed using the concept of the global gamma through the commercial software RIT113. The real-time gamma analysis for a single CP of the VMAT plan was performed with the extracted CP dose maps, considering the different sampling rates between the developed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM. Specifically, we selected a single CP dose map with a time difference of <0.1 ms between the developed dosimeter and MatriXX ResolutionTM.
The quantitative evaluation of the mechanical performance of the developed dosimeter was conducted using the picket fence test [69] recommended by TG-142 to individually validate the alignments of the MLC leaves [10]. The nine narrow bands had a gap width of 10 mm and an interval of 15 mm. TrueBeam STx modulated the radiation fields with 60 pairs of MLC leaves affixed to two opposing parallel carriages (banks A and B). The picket fence test was performed four times with two repetitions each from bank B to bank A and bank A to bank B directions; the test from the bank A to bank B direction was defined as an inverse trial. The MLC positions of the clinical cases were also predicted using the thresholding-based MLC mask in IMRT and the WaveUNet-based MLC mask in VMAT.
The accuracy of MLC positioning was evaluated by comparing the predicted MLC positions in the proposed system and recording the MLC positions in the log files. The log file, which is a record of the LINAC data including the gantry angles, MLC positions, and delivered MU, is stored after treatment completion, and it has been reported to provide accurate MLC positions through various analyses [70-72]. Specifically, the developed dosimeter recorded the dose distribution every 16.67 ms, and the TrueBeam trajectory log file was written with a sampling rate of 20 ms. Therefore, we synchronized the time stamps of the developed dosimeter and log file using linear interpolation to compare the MLC positions in the same phase:
where
where
The examples of the corrected dose distributions obtained by using the registration and IRT-based methods are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The plots from Figs. 13 and 14 demonstrate the measured beam profiles along
The analytic reconstruction algorithm, FBP, severely degraded images with streak artifacts induced by theoretically insufficient angular sampling. The iterative reconstruction algorithm, MLEM, succeeded in suppressing the streak artifacts by iteratively applying a weighting factor; however, the edge of the reconstructed image, which is a high-frequency component in the frequency domain, was enhanced as the number of iterations increased [73]. Thus, the beam profile of the MLEM-reconstructed image increases near the dose fall-off region, as shown in Fig. 14d. The proposed algorithm, FISTA, restored the geometric distortion and decreased the streak artifacts in the reconstructed images while maintaining dose distributions similar to those in the references, as indicated in Fig 14.
The analytic reconstruction algorithm, FBP, severely degraded images with streak artifacts induced by theoretically insufficient angular sampling. The iterative reconstruction algorithm, MLEM, succeeded in suppressing the streak artifacts by iteratively applying a weighting factor; however, the edge of the reconstructed image, which is a high-frequency component in the frequency domain, was enhanced as the number of iterations increased [73]. Thus, the beam profile of the MLEM-reconstructed image increases near the dose fall-off region, as shown in Fig. 14d. The proposed algorithm, FISTA, restored the geometric distortion and decreased the streak artifacts in the reconstructed images while maintaining dose distributions similar to those in the references, as indicated in Fig 14.
The output factor measured by the proposed dosimeter after applying the field size-based correction function is shown in Fig.15a. The output factor measurement was repeated three times using the ionization chamber and developed dosimeter. The measured data are summarized in Table 2. The correction curve based on the computed field size from the extracted mask restored the error of the camera image sensor, similar to that of the ionization chamber (CC13) used as a reference. The masks of the VMAT plans were extracted using the cycleGAN model to avoid incomplete binarization originating from the noise in a single frame (Fig. 16). The predicted masks using UNet and cycleGAN from the CP image in Fig. 3b and the ground truth image generated through DICOM-RT are presented in Fig. 16. The cycleGAN model detected signals from the noises (arrows) more accurately than the UNet (Fig. 16b).
Table 2 Comparisons of the output factor measurements between the ionization chamber (CC13) and proposed dosimeter
Field size [cm2] | Ionization chamber | Proposed dosimeter | Deviation ( | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | |||
3×3 | 0.8823 | 0.0001 | 0.8897 | 0.0182 | 1.0084±0.0206 | |
5×5 | 0.9288 | 0.0000 | 0.9365 | 0.0207 | 1.0083±0.0223 | |
10×10 | 1.0000 | 0.0001 | 1.0000 | 0.0193 | 1.0000±0.0193 | |
15×15 | 1.0374 | 0.0010 | 1.0391 | 0.0152 | 1.0016±0.0147 | |
20×20 | 1.0636 | 0.0000 | 1.0603 | 0.0136 | 0.9969±0.0128 | |
25×25 | 1.0819 | 0.0000 | 1.0848 | 0.0184 | 1.0027±0.0170 | |
30×30 | 1.0966 | 0.0001 | 1.0911 | 0.0081 | 0.9950±0.0074 |
Furthermore, the output factor correction function was validated by comparing the dose profiles from the single-segment dose map of MatriXX ResolutionTM and the proposed system (Fig. 17). The single-segment dose map was extracted from the IMRT plan and was selected as the non-uniform radiation field, as shown in Fig. 17a. Although the dose distribution had a heterogenous radiation field, the dose profile of the proposed system was indicated as similar to that of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. The developed system recorded the dose distribution delivered from the medical LINAC with a fixed energy of 6 MV at a consistent sampling rate of the camera. The dose distribution of the single frame was modulated according to the size of the radiation field. Therefore, the equivalent field size-based output correction restored the output difference induced by the intrinsic response of the camera sensor, so that it could be similar to the measurement of the reference.
In the dose profile comparisons, the dose profile of the MatriXX ResolutionTM was smoothed near the edge of the dose map due to the low resolution of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. However, the dose profile of the proposed system showed enhanced sharpness in the high-dose gradient regions.
The linear response of the developed dosimeter was also observed in the dose linearity test (Fig. 15b). The real-time dose distribution measured by the proposed dosimeter at a fixed dose fluctuated due to the aliasing between the beam pulse rate of the LINAC and the sampling rate of the camera. Therefore, we applied an iterative FT-based aliasing correction to the recorded video. The accumulated doses at different dose rates of the proposed dosimeter were within 3% of constancy (Fig. 15c) The maximum difference of the dose-rate dependency in the developed system was 2.35% at 500 MU/min, which is within the daily tolerance recommended by the TG-142 report [10].
The gamma analysis of the IMRT plans with gamma criteria of 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm are summarized in Table 3. The gamma passing rates for VMAT are listed in Table 4. The gamma passing rate was calculated after specifying the area by a dose threshold of 10%. The average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion of the IMRT plans computed between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM was 98.28%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3-mm criterion of the IMRT plans computed between the proposed system and radiochromic film was 99.35%. For the VMAT plans, the average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion computed between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM was 98.01%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3 mm criterion calculated between the proposed system and radiochromic film was 99.27%. The recommended gamma passing rate with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion was 95% at the clinical sites [9]. The gamma passing rates computed between the proposed system and EBT3 film were higher than those calculated between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM, since the EBT3 film had a high spatial resolution similar to that of the proposed dosimeter.
Table 3 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 IMRT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Field/segment | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 604.15 | 7/65 | 93.64 | 98.69 | 98.33 | 99.85 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 643.58 | 5/66 | 88.63 | 96.66 | 90.44 | 98.91 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 592.20 | 5/48 | 89.36 | 98.63 | 94.39 | 99.45 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 882.45 | 5/54 | 90.25 | 98.86 | 94.94 | 99.27 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 1,138.97 | 5/45 | 89.72 | 97.90 | 91.75 | 98.31 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 605.01 | 5/69 | 95.49 | 99.20 | 95.67 | 99.62 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 918.73 | 5/70 | 86.60 | 96.65 | 93.27 | 99.84 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 2,413.06 | 5/60 | 92.98 | 99.15 | 95.69 | 99.94 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 764.91 | 6/57 | 92.08 | 98.48 | 95.10 | 99.47 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 923.92 | 7/66 | 93.34 | 98.60 | 93.35 | 98.83 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 91.21 | 98.28 | 94.29 | 99.35 |
Table 4 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 VMAT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Sequence/CP | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 471.95 | 2/360 | 94.17 | 98.85 | 96.00 | 99.50 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 501.11 | 2/180 | 88.15 | 98.40 | 97.88 | 99.89 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 428.84 | 2/240 | 92.83 | 99.14 | 95.35 | 99.59 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 717.18 | 2/180 | 90.57 | 98.04 | 98.47 | 99.89 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 593.89 | 2/360 | 88.78 | 96.69 | 91.28 | 98.59 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 538.60 | 2/208 | 93.89 | 96.84 | 94.68 | 99.37 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 341.24 | 2/360 | 88.09 | 97.63 | 93.22 | 98.42 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 1,164.23 | 2/360 | 89.81 | 98.69 | 93.16 | 99.62 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 664.32 | 3/270 | 91.85 | 98.58 | 93.70 | 98.93 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 515.39 | 2/360 | 87.30 | 97.23 | 91.15 | 98.86 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 90.54 | 98.01 | 94.49 | 99.27 |
Furthermore, the gamma analysis on a single segment of the IMRT plan and a single CP of the VMAT plan with the gamma criteria of 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm are summarized in Table 5. The average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion in the single segment of the IMRT plan was 95.25%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3-mm criterion in the single CP of the VMAT plan was 80.76%. The single gamma results of the VMAT were less accurate than those of the IMRT due to the noise of the single frame and discrepancy of the sampling rate between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM.
Table 5 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for a single segment of the IMRT cases and single CP of the VMAT cases. Gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM
Patient ID | Site | IMRT | VMAT | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Segment | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | CP | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | |||
1 | Brain | 65 | 86.01 | 95.17 | 68 | 65.97 | 71.43 | |
2 | Brain | 66 | 87.92 | 97.86 | 32 | 70.84 | 86.28 | |
3 | H&N | 48 | 90.30 | 94.92 | 46 | 63.55 | 70.53 | |
4 | H&N | 54 | 91.06 | 95.13 | 46 | 63.20 | 77.67 | |
5 | Lung | 45 | 85.61 | 94.60 | 44 | 67.54 | 81.59 | |
6 | Lung | 69 | 88.52 | 93.96 | 38 | 68.51 | 85.93 | |
7 | Abdomen | 70 | 86.85 | 94.41 | 78 | 62.52 | 84.25 | |
8 | Abdomen | 60 | 89.78 | 93.62 | 72 | 64.07 | 84.67 | |
9 | Pelvis | 56 | 94.68 | 97.70 | 55 | 62.53 | 83.12 | |
10 | Pelvis | 66 | 81.46 | 95.14 | 36 | 67.55 | 82.08 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 88.22 | 95.25 | 65.63 | 80.76 |
The dose rates of the LINAC in the pelvic IMRT and VMAT cases are shown in Fig. 18. The dose rates from the measurements estimated the LINAC dose rates with a high accuracy. However, the IMRT case was underestimated in several segments, particularly for small radiation field sizes. The error in the dose rate prediction was the largest when the radiation field size was <1 cm2. The proposed system predicts the LINAC dose rate after applying compensation to the instantaneous doses. The compensation process employed the calculated output factor from the function derived from the computed radiation field sizes and the reference output factors measured by the ionization chamber. The reference output factor measurements were at field sizes of 3×3, 5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2. Therefore, the error in the LINAC dose rate prediction could be attributed to the missing data, such as the output factors of the small radiation field sizes, thereby inducing instability in the compensation function.
The MAE calculated from the predicted MLC positions and log files for leaf numbers from 2 to 59 were 0.4800 and 0.3776 mm in banks A and B, respectively. Specifically, the position errors of banks A and B were smaller when the MLC leaves were in the state of retraction from the carriages than in the state of extraction. The MLC position errors investigated for the EBT3 film were 0.4039 and 0.3613 mm for banks A and B, respectively. A tolerance for a leaf positioning accuracy of 1 mm was recommended by TG-142 [10]. The predicted positions of the first and last (60th) leaves were larger than the interleaves owing to the edges of the MLC mask. The MLC mask of the picket fence test was extracted by applying a threshold to the normalized dose image used in the IMRT plans. Thus, the penumbras in the vertical and horizontal directions resulted in the rounded tips of the MLC mask during the segmentation process.
The computed MAEs of the MLC positioning in the clinical cases are listed in Table 6. The mean prediction errors of the MLC position for the IMRT plans with a solid water phantom of 5 cm were 1.7010 and 1.4722 mm for banks A and B, respectively. The average MLC prediction accuracy for the VMAT plans with a 5-cm-thick solid water phantom was 2.8107 mm in bank A and 2.7713 mm in bank B. Although the cameras of the proposed dosimeter captured the dose distribution in the VMAT plan with a frame rate of 16.67 ms, the consecutive motion of the MLC contributed to the degradation of the accuracy in MLC position prediction. The maximum speed of the MLC movements for the VMAT case used in the present study was 27.58 mm s−1 based on the data from the log file, which corresponded to a movement of 0.4668 mm in a single frame.
Table 6 The MAE calculated from the predicted MLC positions and log files for the IMRT and VMAT cases
Case | Bank | Patient ID | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
IMRT | A (mm) | 1.0473 | 1.4893 | 1.8461 | 1.2076 | 1.9972 | 2.0938 | 2.1229 | 2.3952 | 1.3517 | 1.4592 |
B (mm) | 0.9529 | 1.1972 | 1.4305 | 1.2470 | 1.5924 | 1.5630 | 1.8516 | 2.1591 | 1.1917 | 1.5364 | |
VMAT | A (mm) | 2.5163 | 1.9565 | 2.2788 | 4.2974 | 2.5680 | 2.7575 | 3.8589 | 2.0460 | 2.7376 | 3.0903 |
B (mm) | 2.7433 | 1.9008 | 2.6042 | 4.3662 | 2.4039 | 2.3258 | 4.0400 | 1.5570 | 2.7869 | 2.9853 |
We developed a scintillator-based multipurpose dosimeter for QA in radiation therapy using an instantaneously interpretable real-time CMOS digital camera. The developed dosimeter measured the planar dose distributions of IMRT and VMAT with a high accuracy and provided an analysis of MLC position tracking with a high sampling frequency. Furthermore, the dose rate could be measured through the readout process of the dose distribution from the proposed dosimeter without the need for additional devices. Specifically, the geometric distortion of the proposed dosimeter system created by the tilted cameras on the corner was calibrated with IRT, which is based on the luminescence intensity function.
The conventional dosimeter, MatriXX ResolutionTM, was applied to the dosimetric evaluation to capture the instant variation of the dose distributions in the IMRT and VMAT plans. The proposed system measured the dose distributions of the IMRT and VMAT plans based on the videos recorded at a frame rate of 16.67 ms, whereas the MatriXX ResolutionTM had the sampling rate of 20 ms. The accumulated dose images of the developed dosimeter were compared with the dose maps measured by conventional dosimeters. The average gamma passing rates were 98.28% and 98.01% in the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, when computing the difference between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM for solid water phantoms of 5 cm with the 3%/3-mm gamma criteria. The average gamma passing rates computed between the proposed system and radiochromic film were 99.35% and 99.27% for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, with the 3%/3-mm gamma criteria. The gamma analysis was performed in a single segment of IMRT and a single CP of VMAT, and the average gamma passing rates were 95.25% and 80.76% for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, with the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria. The dose rates assigned by LINAC were predicted from the sequentially recorded dose images with a high sampling frequency and were verified to be well-matched with the log files.
The accuracy of the MLC position is an important component of VMAT when delivering a prescribed dose to a patient. The MLC positioning can be verified with a high accuracy from the log files generated by the LINAC after beam irradiation. However, the MLC positions in the log files were recorded using an indirect method, such as counting the number of motor rotations for leaf extension. The uncertainties of the log file-based MLC positioning validation were evaluated using various methods [74-78]. To enhance the accuracy and minimize these uncertainties, the developed system employs the direct measurement of MLC positions with high speed and precision. This approach offers real-time validation, potentially reducing errors in treatment delivery and improving the reliability of the mechanical QA of medical LINACs. By implementing this direct measurement technique, the radiation treatment can achieve a more accurate dose distribution, minimize critical organ irradiation, and improve the patient outcomes through a more precise and effective radiotherapy treatments.
The feasibility of the mechanical QA performance in the proposed system was evaluated through the picket fence test recommended in the TG-142 report. Through the picket fence test, the proposed system proved its reliability with acceptable accuracy in the mechanical QA of LINAC. Specifically, the proposed system predicted the MLC position of the VMAT after applying the WaveUNet-based MLC mask extraction algorithm to the single CP dose map. Although the single CP dose map included a high noise due to the intrinsic characteristics of the camera sensor, the WaveUNet-based MLC mask extraction algorithm allowed real-time mechanical QA of LINAC to be performed in the proposed system. However, several clinical cases of the VMAT plans showed real-time MLC positioning errors reaching 4 mm. The large difference between the predicted and reference MLC positions was related to the sampling rate of the camera and the noise in the single-frame dose map. The frame rate of the developed dosimeter was set to 60 FPS; however, a time interval of 16.67 ms was induced in the single frame. The time interval of the single frame resulted in motion blurs in the recorded video when the MLCs were continuously modulated at speeds of up to 27.58 mm s-1 during the beam-on time. Furthermore, in the VMAT case, the signal-to-noise ratio of the single frame was reduced due to the insufficient time of acquiring the signal from the camera sensor. However, it is possible to improve the image quality of the recorded video by using a high-performance recording device. Moreover, the optimization of the MLC mask extraction algorithm, such as WaveUNet in the proposed system can improve the accuracy in MLC position tracking.
A real-time dosimeter using a scintillator plate and a CMOS-based camera was used to analyze the dose rate and MLC positioning error for VMAT [38]. In a published study, the usability of the developed dosimeter was successfully proved by tracking the MLC positions and measuring the dose rates in the VMAT plans with fixed dose rates in sequences between two CPs [79]. In this study, the highly sampled dose maps measured using the developed system allowed for real-time analysis. The dosimeter was validated for the dosimetric and mechanical performances in the IMRT and VMAT plans with a perpendicular composite delivery. Not only the distributions and MLC positions of the static dose rate and radiation field but also those in the dynamic dose rate and radiation field were measured at clinically acceptable levels. Specifically, these dosimetric and mechanical evaluations were performed independently of the machine. TrueBeam STx delivered the prescribed doses in the VMAT plans with consecutively varying dose rates. The proposed system also captured the rapidly changing dose rates and analyzed the dosimetric and mechanical characteristics of the instantaneous dose distribution with a high temporal resolution.
In the present study, we successfully developed an instantaneously interpretable real-time dosimeter for QA in a medical LINAC using a scintillator plate and CMOS-based digital cameras. The dosimeter recorded the scintillation generated by X-rays irradiating the scintillator with a high sampling frequency and converted it into a dose image by applying deep learning-based mask extraction, FT-based dose rate correction, and IRT-based geometric correction. The proposed system fulfills the dosimetric and mechanical performance criteria required for state-of-the-art radiation therapy. The gamma analysis of the 20 clinical cases was clinically acceptable, and the accuracy of MLC positioning met the QA protocol requirement of TG-142.
This work was supported by Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) grant funded by the Korea Government (MOTIE) (P0012971).
The authors have nothing to disclose.
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Conceptualization: Dongyeon Lee, Wonjoong Cheon, Youngyih Han. Data curation: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim. Formal analysis: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Funding acquisition: Youngyih Han. Investigation: Dongyeon Lee, Hyosung Cho, Youngyih Han. Methodology: Dongyeon Lee, Hyosung Cho, Youngyih Han. Project administration: Youngyih Han. Resources: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim, Youngyih Han. Software: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim, Youngyih Han. Supervision: Youngyih Han. Validation: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Visualization: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Writing – original draft: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Writing – review & editing: Youngyih Han.
Progress in Medical Physics 2024; 35(4): 178-204
Published online December 31, 2024 https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2024.35.4.178
Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.
Dongyeon Lee1,2 , Sung Jin Kim2
, Wonjoong Cheon3
, Hyosung Cho1
, Youngyih Han2,4
1Department of Radiation Convergence Engineering, Yonsei University, Wonju, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, 4Department of Health Sciences and Technology, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to:Youngyih Han
(youngyih@skku.edu)
Tel: 82-2-3410-2604
Fax: 82-2-3410-2619
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: Modern radiotherapy delivers radiation doses to targets within a few minutes using intricate multiple-beam segments determined with multi-leaf collimators (MLC). Therefore, we propose a scintillator-based dosimetry system capable of assessing the dosimetric and mechanical performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in real time.
Methods: The dosimeter was equipped with a scintillator plate and two digital cameras. The dose distribution was generated by applying deep learning-based signal processing to correct the intrinsic characteristics of the camera sensor and a tomographic image reconstruction technique to rectify the geometric distortion of the recorded video. Dosimetric evaluations were performed using a gamma analysis against a two-dimensional array and radiochromic film measurements for 20 clinical cases. The average difference in the MLC position measurements and machine log files was tested for the applicability of the mechanical quality assurance (QA) of MLCs.
Results: The agreement of the dose distribution in the IMRT and VMAT plans was clinically acceptable between the proposed system and conventional dosimeters. The average differences in the MLC positions for the IMRT/VMAT plans were 1.7010/2.8107 mm and 1.4722/2.7713 mm in banks A and B, respectively.
Conclusions: In this study, we developed an instantaneously interpretable real-time dosimeter for QA in a medical linear accelerator using a scintillator plate and digital cameras. The feasibility of the proposed system was investigated using dosimetric and mechanical evaluations in the IMRT and VMAT plans. The developed system has clinically acceptable accuracy in both the dosimetric and mechanical QAs of the IMRT and VMAT plans.
Keywords: Dosimeter, Real-time, Deep learning, Dose rate, Multi-leaf collimators
Modern radiotherapy techniques allow normal tissues to receive a minimal dose of radiation while maintaining a prescription dose conformal to the target volume. Specifically, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) [1] and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) [2] deliver radiation doses to a target within a few minutes using intricate multiple beam segments determined with jaw and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). The combination of multiple beam segments allows the radiation dose to be more focused on the target as compared with the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) [3-5]; however, the complexity of dose modulation in IMRT and VMAT requires a more suffocating validation process as compared with 3DCRT [6-8]. Therefore, the task group (TG) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has published reports on the patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of IMRT and VMAT plans; these reports have been widely adopted by radiation therapy institutes to reduce the uncertainty of IMRT and VMAT [9-11].
Patient-specific QA can be performed by comparing the measured dose distributions with the dose map computed from the treatment planning system (TPS). According to a recent survey, 80.6% of the sites responded that they conducted patient-specific QA with planar measurements to verify the delivered dose [12]. Planar dosimetry can be performed using a radiochromic film, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), a two-dimensional (2D) diode array, and a 2D ionization chamber array. Radiochromic films have advantages, including a high spatial resolution and convenience of employment [13]. However, they cannot be reused and are unsuitable for real-time dosimetry because of the saturation time required to stabilize the discoloration [14]. The EPID has shown potential to replace film dosimetry [15,16]. Generally, dosimetry using the EPID was performed by applying the water dose conversion to the acquired radiograph image [17-21], and the properties of the EPID allowed performance of the machine-independent measurements. However, the instability in dosimetry has been presented, since the EPID was originally designed for imaging applications. Furthermore, structural limitations, including increased non-uniform backscatter due to the supporting arm, caused a non-linear response to radiation [22-24].
The continuously varying dose rates of VMAT allows the MLC to be modulated at a high speed such that the delivery time of VMAT is shorter than that of IMRT. Additionally, a continuously varying dose rate contributes to improved beam flatness and stability as compared to a fixed dose rate [25]. However, the high speed of the MLC increases the positioning errors of leaves [26,27]; therefore, the instant dose rate and accuracy of the MLC position are important components of VMAT quality.
A scintillator plate-based dosimeter with a camera was first developed in 1980 by Baily et al. [28] and improved by Boon et al. [29] for the direct measurement of the radiation dose in a water phantom. The characteristics of the scintillator with respect to linearity, repeatability, and stability were evaluated, and its feasibility as a dosimeter was proved [30]. Camera image sensors, including complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOSs) and charge-coupled devices (CCDs), are damaged when the camera is in the radiation field, which can increase the dark current and hot pixels in the captured image [31-33]. Thus, in the conventional scintillator dosimeter, the camera was mounted on the side and a mirror was installed to protect the image sensor from the primary beam and prevent geometric distortion of the recorded image by reflecting the scintillation [34-37]. However, the built-in mirror increased the dosimeter volume, and the commercial scintillator dosimeter, for example, Lynx PT (IBA Dosimetry) has dimensions of 360×370×600 mm3. Although the accessibility of scintillator dosimeters is limited due to their excessive volume, recent advances in signal processing, which enable cameras to capture images with a high temporal resolution, have shown promise as verification devices for VMAT [38].
In the present study, we developed a mirror-less real-time scintillator dosimeter for the QA of a medical linear accelerator (LINAC), specifically for IMRT and VMAT plans, which can detect the varying dose rates of delivering beams. In this article, the IMRT was defined as a plan with a static MLC during beam delivery, whereas the VMAT was defined as a plan with a dynamic MLC. The dosimeter was composed of a scintillator plate and two CMOS-based cameras without a mirror. The proposed system was capable of measuring the dose distributions at 60 frames per second (FPS), which corresponds to a sampling rate of 16.67 ms. The high temporal resolution provided a function for interpreting the instantaneously modulated dose distribution in the media. Specifically, the proposed system performed a real-time analysis of VMAT, which could predict the dose rates of the LINAC and track the MLC positions in multiple beam segments through highly sampled dose maps. Removing the mirror improved the usability by reducing the weight to 4.08 kg. The characteristics of the developed system were analyzed and the dosimetric and mechanical performance were verified.
The proposed dosimeter was composed of a scintillator plate and two digital cameras with CMOS image sensors in an aluminum-frame-based dark box (Fig. 1). A scintillator plate was placed on the top of the dark box, and two digital cameras were installed at the bottom, tilted to face the scintillator plate. Both cameras had the same tilting angle of 57°. The dosimeter had a volume of 316×606×306 mm3 and a weight of 4.08 kg. All sides of the dosimeter were covered with a black paper to block the external light.
The PI-200 (Mitsubishi Chemical) set on top of the dark box was a flat-plate-type inorganic scintillator with a size of 300×300×0.9 mm3. It includes three layers of protective phosphor and supporting materials. The phosphor layer was composed of terbium-doped gadolinium oxysulfide, which is widely used in medical imaging systems.
A DSC-RX100M7 (Sony Group Corp.) digital camera recorded the emitted light from the scintillator plate (volume of 42.8×101.6×58.1 mm3 and a weight of 302 g). The recorded video had high-resolution images with pixel dimensions of 1,920×1,080 and a frame rate of 60 FPS, equivalent to 16.67 ms in a single frame. The cameras were operated using remote controllers during irradiation. After recording, the video from the two digital cameras was transmitted to a computer for signal processing, as described below.
The light emitted from the scintillator was recorded by a camera using a CMOS image sensor. The main peak in the spectrum of the emitted scintillation was approximately at 530 nm, and the recorded videos are mainly presented in green. Therefore, we performed signal processing using the green channel of the recorded video to convert the recorded video into a dose map. Fig. 2 shows the signal processing of the proposed dosimeter system.
First, when the recorded video was input, the video was summed along the frames, and a threshold value was applied to the summed video to obtain a beam signal. Thereafter, the masks of the radiation fields were extracted from the video of the IMRT and VMAT plans through segment and control point (CP)-based processing, respectively. Given that IMRT and VMAT have different mechanisms of dose delivery, we divided the signal processing in two ways. Specifically, the recorded video of the IMRT was disturbed by aliasing between the frame rate of the camera and the fixed beam pulse rate of the LINAC in each segment. Therefore, we applied an iterative Fourier transform (FT)-based aliasing correction to the recorded IMRT video before mask extraction. A detailed description is provided in Section “Iterative Fourier transform-based aliasing correction”. Thereafter, the IMRT mask was generated after applying a threshold of 0.45 to the normalized segment image. The threshold value for the IMRT video mask extraction was selected empirically. The segmented image was acquired by accumulating the video frames recorded at each subfield of the IMRT plan. Fig. 3a shows an example of the recorded video images and the extracted masks from a single segment of the IMRT plan. However, VMAT modulates the radiation doses with consecutively varying radiation fields built from the jaw and MLC, and it is controlled in the LINAC through CPs. The recorded video of the VMAT plan had a different radiation field in each frame corresponding to a CP. However, a single frame of the VMAT plan recording includes grain noises because of the high international organization for standardization (ISO) value setting of the digital cameras [39,40], whereas the recorded video from the IMRT plan was free from grain noises due to the accumulated frames. Consequently, the mask generated by applying a threshold to a single frame of the VMAT plan was incompletely binarized, as shown in Fig. 3b. Therefore, we applied deep learning-based mask extraction to the VMAT plan’s recorded video to overcome this limitation. The details of the deep learning-based mask extraction of the VMAT are described in Section “Video mask extraction of the VMAT plan”.
After the mask extraction, a signal correction was applied to the video image. Camera image sensors, including CMOS and CCD, have intrinsic sensitivity to brightness according to the ISO value. The sensitivity of the camera sensor to a certain ISO value is indicated by an S-shaped curve for the dynamic range of light [41,42]. Generally, camera sensors with higher ISO values respond to photons more quickly as compared to those with lower ISO values. Therefore, cameras in dark environments often use high ISO value settings. In the present study, an ISO value of 12,800 was adopted to record the light of the scintillator plate in a dark box. However, because of the intrinsic response of the camera sensor to brightness, the output factors for several radiation field sizes measured with the proposed dosimeter were different from the reference values measured by the ionization chamber (CC13; IBA Dosimetry), as shown in Fig. 4. The output factor of the proposed dosimeter before the signal correction was observed to increase sharply as compared to that of the reference in large-sized radiation fields.
A cubic function-based correction curve was employed in the recorded video to mitigate the discrepancy between the camera and ionization chamber measurements. The output factor is dependent on the size of the radiation field; thus, we computed the equivalent field size (
where
Thereafter, the correction curve was estimated using a cubic function based on the curve fitting function of MATLAB (R2021a, MathWorks), and the computed radiation field size from the extracted mask and output factor ratio of the reference to the measurement were used as the input parameters. The output factor correction was performed using the equivalent field size for each frame of the recorded video. The setup had a source-axis distance of 100 cm to a 5-cm deep solid water phantom, where the signal correction curve was estimated. The distributions under different setup conditions from the aforementioned state can be measured after applying signal correction, which is calculated under the setup condition to be observed.
The proposed dosimeter required space under the scintillator plate to capture the light produced as a result of the interaction between the scintillator material and radiation. This structural design makes it difficult to ensure the contribution of the backscatter generated from the materials behind the scintillator plate. Generally, a backscatter thickness of ≥6 cm is required for a 6-MV photon beam [43,44]. However, the signal correction of the proposed system was used to rectify every error caused by the camera sensor and structural limitations, including the backscattering deficiency. After the signal correction, a geometric correction was performed to recover the distortion caused by the position of the digital cameras. The details of the geometric correction are described in Section “Iterative reconstruction technique-based geometric correction”.
The prescribed signal processing procedure for the IMRT and VMAT plans are summarized in Fig. 2.
The proposed dosimeter system corrected the output factor errors using the correction curve based on the estimated size of the radiation field from the mask. Thus, it is important to acquire the exact mask of the radiation field from the recorded video images. However, the VMAT plan’s recorded video had a limitation in mask generation using the thresholding method, as described in Section “Video mask extraction of the VMAT plan”. Recently, image processing based on deep learning has demonstrated outstanding performance in the medical field, including image segmentation [45,46]. In particular, the usability of the UNet-based mask extractor has been proven [47]. However, the enlarged receptive field of UNet with pooling layers can lose the details of an image presented at a high frequency [48,49]. Therefore, we applied a cycleGAN-based mask extractor [50-52] to the VMAT plan’s recorded videos.
A simplified diagram of the cycleGAN-based VMAT mask extraction algorithm is shown in Fig. 6. In the proposed algorithm, the cycleGAN model included the following two trainable components: generators and discriminators. The generators and discriminators of cycleGAN work complementarily to achieve convergence during the training process. The generator was trained to produce fake images by reflecting the relationship between the masks (
The proposed network was trained with the video images of the IMRT plans and masks were calculated from the digital imaging and communication in medicine of radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) files generated by the TPS (Eclipse ver. 15.5; Varian Medical Systems) at Samsung Medical Center. Generally, the DICOM-RT file includes geometric and dosimetric data specifying the course of radiotherapy, such as the beam angles, collimator openings, and beam modifiers. Therefore, the jaw and MLC positions can be specified from the DICOM-RT file. After extracting the positions of the jaw and MLC, the MLC mask can be generated by calculation using the geometric properties of the medical LINAC. A video mask for training the cycleGAN-based mask extraction algorithm was produced by applying the forward projecting operator (
We used an X-ray beam with an energy of 6 MV from a me­dical LINAC (TrueBeam STx; Varian Medical Systems) at various dose rates. The dose rate was defined as the monitor unit (MU) per minute of the medical LINAC. In general, the dose per pulse of a medical LINAC is constant, and the dose rate is varied by modifying the beam pulse rate [55,56]. The TrueBeam STx used in this study has a beam pulse rate of 60 Hz at a dose rate of 100 MU/min. The beam pulse frequency was sequentially increased to 120 Hz at 200 MU/min, 180 Hz at 300 MU/min, 240 Hz at 400 MU/min, 300 Hz at 500 MU/min, and 360 Hz at 600 MU/min. Therefore, we set the camera frame rate to 60 FPS to cover all configurable dose rates in the TrueBeam STx. The scintillation signal input to the camera can be periodically attenuated owing to the sampling frequency of the image sensor, as shown in Fig. 7a, which is referred to as aliasing [57]. As a result, the signal from a single frame had a linear relationship with the dose rate; however, the dose rate response of the accumulated frames was indicated differently even when the same dose was irradiated. (Fig. 7b) Thus, we applied an iterative FT-based aliasing correction method to the IMRT signals, as shown in Fig. 8. First, the signal from the IMRT was
where the initial
Finally, the corrected signal was obtained by applying an inverse FT to
Generally, the VMAT delivers the radiation with a continuously variable dose rate during the beam-on time, and the continuously variable dose rate can be indicated as a multi-band signal. The measured signals at different dose rates of the IMRT, including aliasing (Fig. 7a), had low frequencies, and these were negligible at continuously variable beam pulse rates. Therefore, we applied the FT-based aliasing correction step only to the IMRT plans.
The side-positioned cameras caused geometric distortions, including prospective distortions, owing to the tilting angles, as shown in Fig. 9a. Thus, we applied an iterative reconstruction technique (IRT) to the recorded video, allowing geometric distortion to be corrected, even in wide radiation fields. First, we assumed that the proposed dosimeter was a digital tomosynthesis model, as shown in Fig. 9b. Generally, computed tomography (CT) systems can be restored using IRT, a mathematical process that generates tomographic images from the projection data acquired at many different angles with repetitive calculation. In this study, we applied a fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (FISTA) [58] to correct the geometric distortion of the proposed dosimeter. The details of the parameters used in the IRT-based geometric correction are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 . Parameters used in the IRT-based geometric correction for dosimetric and mechanical QA.
Parameter | Dosimetric QA | Mechanical QA |
---|---|---|
Source-to-detector distance (mm) | 543.72 | 543.72 |
Source-to-object distance (mm) | 357.71 | 357.71 |
No. of projections | 2 | 2 |
Pixel size (mm) | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Pixel dimension | 1,920×1,080 | 1,920×1,080 |
Voxel size (mm) | 1 | 0.1 |
Voxel dimension | 300×300 | 3,000×3,000 |
Reconstruction algorithm | FISTA | FISTA |
The mathematical settings for the description of the FISTA framework in a general CT system were prepared as follows. The original image vector to be reconstructed (
where
Using these definitions, the measurement equation is described as follows:
The linear equation Eq. (4) has an infinite solution under the condition
where
where
The convex optimization problem described in Eq. (9) can be solved approximately but efficiently using the accelerated proximal gradient descent method [59,60]. In the CT reconstruction process, the system matrix is repeatedly expanded to calculate the forward and backward projections in each iteration loop.
The conventional system matrix (
where
where
The dose maps measured by the developed dosimeter were built from the jaw and MLC of the LINAC. Traditionally, the radiation field size is defined as the 50% isodose line of the beam profiles at the maximum dose. The MLC positions in the measured dose maps can be predicted using the binarized mask after applying a simple threshold, as shown in Fig. 10.
Thresholding-based mask extraction for the prediction of the MLC position in VMAT plans was unable to produce binary images similar to the real MLC position maps because of the increased noise in a single frame, as shown in Fig. 11. Therefore, we applied wavelet-assisted UNet (WaveUNet) to generate MLC masks from the reconstructed CP dose images (Fig. 12).
A single scale of the 2D discrete wavelet transform without a diagonal detail [62] was applied to the reconstructed CP dose images before being feedforward to the network. The input wavelet-transformed images were downsized through the pooling layers in the encoding part of the WaveUNet and upsized through the unpooling layers in the decoding part. The WaveUNet includes a shortcut connection indicated by dotted arrows in Fig. 12 to include features of the encoding part in the decoding part, as a conventional UNet model [47]. The WaveUNet model was then optimized using the binary cross-entropy loss function (
where
Given that the developed system measured the absolute dose distributions at a high sampling rate, the dose rate of the LINAC was predictable. The proposed dosimeter measured the dose distribution every 16.67 ms during the beam-on time. First, instantaneous doses were extracted from all the frames recorded during the beam-on time. The LINAC dose rate was then estimated after applying compensation for the measured dose rates. X-rays were delivered from the LINAC during the beam-on time at a constant dose rate; however, the measured dose rates were different because the radiation field sizes and doses were modulated by the jaw and MLCs. Thus, the dose rate of the LINAC was estimated after applying compensation to the instantaneous doses. In the signal correction process, we acquired the reference output factors using the ionization chamber and the equivalent radiation field sizes computed from the extracted video masks. The compensation process was performed by dividing the instantaneous doses by the calculated output factors from the function derived from the computed field sizes and output factors. The predicted LINAC dose rates from the developed dosimeter were compared with those calculated from the TrueBeam trajectory log files.
In a previous study, an image registration technique was applied to correct the geometric distortion of a scintillator dosimeter using a single camera [64]. The registration-based correction method restored the geometric distortion of the recorded video image by applying the affine transformation, including shear. The registration method was applied to the dual camera-based proposed system to compare the accuracy of the geometric distortion correction with that of the IRT-based method. The IRT-based method used to correct the geometric distortion derived from tilted cameras is widely used in CT reconstruction. Video images from the two cameras were used to reconstruct the dose distribution image of the developed dosimeter, which corresponds to two projection data points in the tomographic system. The other reconstruction algorithms for the analytical and iterative methods were implemented for comparison. Filtered back projection (FBP) and maximum-likelihood estimation–maximization (MLEM) [65] were used as the analytic and iterative methods, respectively, for the comparison of the reconstruction algorithms. The correction of the geometric distortion in the developed dosimeter employing the tomographic image reconstruction technique was performed using a MATLAB code accelerated by a graphic processing unit for fast calculation [66].
The proposed dosimeter system was evaluated in terms of its general, dosimetric, and mechanical performances. The output factor, linearity, and dose-rate dependency were assessed using general performance tests. In the output factor test, we exposed 105 MU equivalent to 100 cGy with field sizes of 3×3, 5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2. The linearity of the developed dosimeter was evaluated using a field size of 10×10 cm2 and delivered doses of 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 cGy. A fixed dose rate of 400 MU/min was used for the output factor and linearity tests. The reference values for the output factor and linearity test were measured using an ionization chamber (CC13). The dose-rate dependency of the proposed system was observed by irradiating X-ray beams with a dose of 300 cGy and dose rates of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 MU/min. In the dose-rate dependency test, the EBT3 film (Ashland) was used as a reference to minimize any influence associated with the sampling frequency issue caused by the digitized dosimeters.
The commercial gamma analysis software (RIT113 ver. 6.2; Radiological Imaging Technology Inc.) was used to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the proposed dosimeter [67,68]. The gamma passing rate was computed to quantify the coincidence between the dose distribution measured by the dosimeter and the dose map acquired from conventional dosimeters, such as a 2D array dosimeter and radiochromic film. The 2D array dosimeter was chosen as it was the sole option capable of instantaneously capturing the modulated dose distributions from the VMAT plans. The IMRT and VMAT plans were generated from 10 clinical cases with five different treatment sites (i.e., brain, head and neck, lung, abdomen, and pelvis); therefore, a total of 20 plans were used in the present study. Given that the proposed system measured the dose distribution by placing the dosimeter on the couch, the clinical plans were recalculated through TPS under the condition of delivering doses from a fixed gantry and collimator set at zero degrees. Specifically, recalculation of the clinical plans to a phantom was performed after anonymizing the individual patient data.
The 2D array dosimeter (MatriXX ResolutionTM; IBA Dosimetry) measured the dose distribution with a pixel spacing of 6.5 mm. The active measurement area of the MatriXX ResolutionTM was 247×247 mm2, and the measured dose map had a resolution of 39×39 pixel. Therefore, we applied linear interpolation to expand the resolution of the MatriXX ResolutionTM dose map to 247×247 with a pixel size of 1×1 mm2. The dose distribution measurement using MatriXX ResolutionTM was performed at a sampling rate of 20 ms to verify the real-time dosimetric performance of the proposed system. For the EBT3 film analysis, digitization was performed with the 75-dots-per-inch scanning option using a 11000XL EPSON flatbed scanner (EPSON). Given that the dose map measured by the proposed dosimeter had a different image size as compared to that of MatriXX ResolutionTM, the dose map of the proposed system was cropped to 247×247. Furthermore, the scanned EBT3 film was rescaled to have a uniform resolution as the dose map of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. Thereafter, co-registration, including image rotation, was applied between the dose map of the proposed system and the measurements of MatriXX ResolutionTM and EBT3 film. Finally, a gamma analysis was performed using the concept of the global gamma through the commercial software RIT113. The real-time gamma analysis for a single CP of the VMAT plan was performed with the extracted CP dose maps, considering the different sampling rates between the developed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM. Specifically, we selected a single CP dose map with a time difference of <0.1 ms between the developed dosimeter and MatriXX ResolutionTM.
The quantitative evaluation of the mechanical performance of the developed dosimeter was conducted using the picket fence test [69] recommended by TG-142 to individually validate the alignments of the MLC leaves [10]. The nine narrow bands had a gap width of 10 mm and an interval of 15 mm. TrueBeam STx modulated the radiation fields with 60 pairs of MLC leaves affixed to two opposing parallel carriages (banks A and B). The picket fence test was performed four times with two repetitions each from bank B to bank A and bank A to bank B directions; the test from the bank A to bank B direction was defined as an inverse trial. The MLC positions of the clinical cases were also predicted using the thresholding-based MLC mask in IMRT and the WaveUNet-based MLC mask in VMAT.
The accuracy of MLC positioning was evaluated by comparing the predicted MLC positions in the proposed system and recording the MLC positions in the log files. The log file, which is a record of the LINAC data including the gantry angles, MLC positions, and delivered MU, is stored after treatment completion, and it has been reported to provide accurate MLC positions through various analyses [70-72]. Specifically, the developed dosimeter recorded the dose distribution every 16.67 ms, and the TrueBeam trajectory log file was written with a sampling rate of 20 ms. Therefore, we synchronized the time stamps of the developed dosimeter and log file using linear interpolation to compare the MLC positions in the same phase:
where
where
The examples of the corrected dose distributions obtained by using the registration and IRT-based methods are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The plots from Figs. 13 and 14 demonstrate the measured beam profiles along
The analytic reconstruction algorithm, FBP, severely degraded images with streak artifacts induced by theoretically insufficient angular sampling. The iterative reconstruction algorithm, MLEM, succeeded in suppressing the streak artifacts by iteratively applying a weighting factor; however, the edge of the reconstructed image, which is a high-frequency component in the frequency domain, was enhanced as the number of iterations increased [73]. Thus, the beam profile of the MLEM-reconstructed image increases near the dose fall-off region, as shown in Fig. 14d. The proposed algorithm, FISTA, restored the geometric distortion and decreased the streak artifacts in the reconstructed images while maintaining dose distributions similar to those in the references, as indicated in Fig 14.
The analytic reconstruction algorithm, FBP, severely degraded images with streak artifacts induced by theoretically insufficient angular sampling. The iterative reconstruction algorithm, MLEM, succeeded in suppressing the streak artifacts by iteratively applying a weighting factor; however, the edge of the reconstructed image, which is a high-frequency component in the frequency domain, was enhanced as the number of iterations increased [73]. Thus, the beam profile of the MLEM-reconstructed image increases near the dose fall-off region, as shown in Fig. 14d. The proposed algorithm, FISTA, restored the geometric distortion and decreased the streak artifacts in the reconstructed images while maintaining dose distributions similar to those in the references, as indicated in Fig 14.
The output factor measured by the proposed dosimeter after applying the field size-based correction function is shown in Fig.15a. The output factor measurement was repeated three times using the ionization chamber and developed dosimeter. The measured data are summarized in Table 2. The correction curve based on the computed field size from the extracted mask restored the error of the camera image sensor, similar to that of the ionization chamber (CC13) used as a reference. The masks of the VMAT plans were extracted using the cycleGAN model to avoid incomplete binarization originating from the noise in a single frame (Fig. 16). The predicted masks using UNet and cycleGAN from the CP image in Fig. 3b and the ground truth image generated through DICOM-RT are presented in Fig. 16. The cycleGAN model detected signals from the noises (arrows) more accurately than the UNet (Fig. 16b).
Table 2 . Comparisons of the output factor measurements between the ionization chamber (CC13) and proposed dosimeter.
Field size [cm2] | Ionization chamber | Proposed dosimeter | Deviation ( | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | |||
3×3 | 0.8823 | 0.0001 | 0.8897 | 0.0182 | 1.0084±0.0206 | |
5×5 | 0.9288 | 0.0000 | 0.9365 | 0.0207 | 1.0083±0.0223 | |
10×10 | 1.0000 | 0.0001 | 1.0000 | 0.0193 | 1.0000±0.0193 | |
15×15 | 1.0374 | 0.0010 | 1.0391 | 0.0152 | 1.0016±0.0147 | |
20×20 | 1.0636 | 0.0000 | 1.0603 | 0.0136 | 0.9969±0.0128 | |
25×25 | 1.0819 | 0.0000 | 1.0848 | 0.0184 | 1.0027±0.0170 | |
30×30 | 1.0966 | 0.0001 | 1.0911 | 0.0081 | 0.9950±0.0074 |
Furthermore, the output factor correction function was validated by comparing the dose profiles from the single-segment dose map of MatriXX ResolutionTM and the proposed system (Fig. 17). The single-segment dose map was extracted from the IMRT plan and was selected as the non-uniform radiation field, as shown in Fig. 17a. Although the dose distribution had a heterogenous radiation field, the dose profile of the proposed system was indicated as similar to that of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. The developed system recorded the dose distribution delivered from the medical LINAC with a fixed energy of 6 MV at a consistent sampling rate of the camera. The dose distribution of the single frame was modulated according to the size of the radiation field. Therefore, the equivalent field size-based output correction restored the output difference induced by the intrinsic response of the camera sensor, so that it could be similar to the measurement of the reference.
In the dose profile comparisons, the dose profile of the MatriXX ResolutionTM was smoothed near the edge of the dose map due to the low resolution of the MatriXX ResolutionTM. However, the dose profile of the proposed system showed enhanced sharpness in the high-dose gradient regions.
The linear response of the developed dosimeter was also observed in the dose linearity test (Fig. 15b). The real-time dose distribution measured by the proposed dosimeter at a fixed dose fluctuated due to the aliasing between the beam pulse rate of the LINAC and the sampling rate of the camera. Therefore, we applied an iterative FT-based aliasing correction to the recorded video. The accumulated doses at different dose rates of the proposed dosimeter were within 3% of constancy (Fig. 15c) The maximum difference of the dose-rate dependency in the developed system was 2.35% at 500 MU/min, which is within the daily tolerance recommended by the TG-142 report [10].
The gamma analysis of the IMRT plans with gamma criteria of 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm are summarized in Table 3. The gamma passing rates for VMAT are listed in Table 4. The gamma passing rate was calculated after specifying the area by a dose threshold of 10%. The average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion of the IMRT plans computed between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM was 98.28%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3-mm criterion of the IMRT plans computed between the proposed system and radiochromic film was 99.35%. For the VMAT plans, the average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion computed between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM was 98.01%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3 mm criterion calculated between the proposed system and radiochromic film was 99.27%. The recommended gamma passing rate with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion was 95% at the clinical sites [9]. The gamma passing rates computed between the proposed system and EBT3 film were higher than those calculated between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM, since the EBT3 film had a high spatial resolution similar to that of the proposed dosimeter.
Table 3 . Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 IMRT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film.
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Field/segment | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 604.15 | 7/65 | 93.64 | 98.69 | 98.33 | 99.85 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 643.58 | 5/66 | 88.63 | 96.66 | 90.44 | 98.91 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 592.20 | 5/48 | 89.36 | 98.63 | 94.39 | 99.45 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 882.45 | 5/54 | 90.25 | 98.86 | 94.94 | 99.27 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 1,138.97 | 5/45 | 89.72 | 97.90 | 91.75 | 98.31 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 605.01 | 5/69 | 95.49 | 99.20 | 95.67 | 99.62 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 918.73 | 5/70 | 86.60 | 96.65 | 93.27 | 99.84 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 2,413.06 | 5/60 | 92.98 | 99.15 | 95.69 | 99.94 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 764.91 | 6/57 | 92.08 | 98.48 | 95.10 | 99.47 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 923.92 | 7/66 | 93.34 | 98.60 | 93.35 | 98.83 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 91.21 | 98.28 | 94.29 | 99.35 |
Table 4 . Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 VMAT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film.
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Sequence/CP | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 471.95 | 2/360 | 94.17 | 98.85 | 96.00 | 99.50 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 501.11 | 2/180 | 88.15 | 98.40 | 97.88 | 99.89 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 428.84 | 2/240 | 92.83 | 99.14 | 95.35 | 99.59 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 717.18 | 2/180 | 90.57 | 98.04 | 98.47 | 99.89 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 593.89 | 2/360 | 88.78 | 96.69 | 91.28 | 98.59 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 538.60 | 2/208 | 93.89 | 96.84 | 94.68 | 99.37 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 341.24 | 2/360 | 88.09 | 97.63 | 93.22 | 98.42 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 1,164.23 | 2/360 | 89.81 | 98.69 | 93.16 | 99.62 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 664.32 | 3/270 | 91.85 | 98.58 | 93.70 | 98.93 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 515.39 | 2/360 | 87.30 | 97.23 | 91.15 | 98.86 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 90.54 | 98.01 | 94.49 | 99.27 |
Furthermore, the gamma analysis on a single segment of the IMRT plan and a single CP of the VMAT plan with the gamma criteria of 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm are summarized in Table 5. The average passing rate of the gamma analysis with the 3%/3-mm gamma criterion in the single segment of the IMRT plan was 95.25%. The mean gamma passing rate using the 3%/3-mm criterion in the single CP of the VMAT plan was 80.76%. The single gamma results of the VMAT were less accurate than those of the IMRT due to the noise of the single frame and discrepancy of the sampling rate between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM.
Table 5 . Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for a single segment of the IMRT cases and single CP of the VMAT cases. Gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM.
Patient ID | Site | IMRT | VMAT | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Segment | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | CP | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | |||
1 | Brain | 65 | 86.01 | 95.17 | 68 | 65.97 | 71.43 | |
2 | Brain | 66 | 87.92 | 97.86 | 32 | 70.84 | 86.28 | |
3 | H&N | 48 | 90.30 | 94.92 | 46 | 63.55 | 70.53 | |
4 | H&N | 54 | 91.06 | 95.13 | 46 | 63.20 | 77.67 | |
5 | Lung | 45 | 85.61 | 94.60 | 44 | 67.54 | 81.59 | |
6 | Lung | 69 | 88.52 | 93.96 | 38 | 68.51 | 85.93 | |
7 | Abdomen | 70 | 86.85 | 94.41 | 78 | 62.52 | 84.25 | |
8 | Abdomen | 60 | 89.78 | 93.62 | 72 | 64.07 | 84.67 | |
9 | Pelvis | 56 | 94.68 | 97.70 | 55 | 62.53 | 83.12 | |
10 | Pelvis | 66 | 81.46 | 95.14 | 36 | 67.55 | 82.08 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 88.22 | 95.25 | 65.63 | 80.76 |
The dose rates of the LINAC in the pelvic IMRT and VMAT cases are shown in Fig. 18. The dose rates from the measurements estimated the LINAC dose rates with a high accuracy. However, the IMRT case was underestimated in several segments, particularly for small radiation field sizes. The error in the dose rate prediction was the largest when the radiation field size was <1 cm2. The proposed system predicts the LINAC dose rate after applying compensation to the instantaneous doses. The compensation process employed the calculated output factor from the function derived from the computed radiation field sizes and the reference output factors measured by the ionization chamber. The reference output factor measurements were at field sizes of 3×3, 5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2. Therefore, the error in the LINAC dose rate prediction could be attributed to the missing data, such as the output factors of the small radiation field sizes, thereby inducing instability in the compensation function.
The MAE calculated from the predicted MLC positions and log files for leaf numbers from 2 to 59 were 0.4800 and 0.3776 mm in banks A and B, respectively. Specifically, the position errors of banks A and B were smaller when the MLC leaves were in the state of retraction from the carriages than in the state of extraction. The MLC position errors investigated for the EBT3 film were 0.4039 and 0.3613 mm for banks A and B, respectively. A tolerance for a leaf positioning accuracy of 1 mm was recommended by TG-142 [10]. The predicted positions of the first and last (60th) leaves were larger than the interleaves owing to the edges of the MLC mask. The MLC mask of the picket fence test was extracted by applying a threshold to the normalized dose image used in the IMRT plans. Thus, the penumbras in the vertical and horizontal directions resulted in the rounded tips of the MLC mask during the segmentation process.
The computed MAEs of the MLC positioning in the clinical cases are listed in Table 6. The mean prediction errors of the MLC position for the IMRT plans with a solid water phantom of 5 cm were 1.7010 and 1.4722 mm for banks A and B, respectively. The average MLC prediction accuracy for the VMAT plans with a 5-cm-thick solid water phantom was 2.8107 mm in bank A and 2.7713 mm in bank B. Although the cameras of the proposed dosimeter captured the dose distribution in the VMAT plan with a frame rate of 16.67 ms, the consecutive motion of the MLC contributed to the degradation of the accuracy in MLC position prediction. The maximum speed of the MLC movements for the VMAT case used in the present study was 27.58 mm s−1 based on the data from the log file, which corresponded to a movement of 0.4668 mm in a single frame.
Table 6 . The MAE calculated from the predicted MLC positions and log files for the IMRT and VMAT cases.
Case | Bank | Patient ID | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
IMRT | A (mm) | 1.0473 | 1.4893 | 1.8461 | 1.2076 | 1.9972 | 2.0938 | 2.1229 | 2.3952 | 1.3517 | 1.4592 |
B (mm) | 0.9529 | 1.1972 | 1.4305 | 1.2470 | 1.5924 | 1.5630 | 1.8516 | 2.1591 | 1.1917 | 1.5364 | |
VMAT | A (mm) | 2.5163 | 1.9565 | 2.2788 | 4.2974 | 2.5680 | 2.7575 | 3.8589 | 2.0460 | 2.7376 | 3.0903 |
B (mm) | 2.7433 | 1.9008 | 2.6042 | 4.3662 | 2.4039 | 2.3258 | 4.0400 | 1.5570 | 2.7869 | 2.9853 |
We developed a scintillator-based multipurpose dosimeter for QA in radiation therapy using an instantaneously interpretable real-time CMOS digital camera. The developed dosimeter measured the planar dose distributions of IMRT and VMAT with a high accuracy and provided an analysis of MLC position tracking with a high sampling frequency. Furthermore, the dose rate could be measured through the readout process of the dose distribution from the proposed dosimeter without the need for additional devices. Specifically, the geometric distortion of the proposed dosimeter system created by the tilted cameras on the corner was calibrated with IRT, which is based on the luminescence intensity function.
The conventional dosimeter, MatriXX ResolutionTM, was applied to the dosimetric evaluation to capture the instant variation of the dose distributions in the IMRT and VMAT plans. The proposed system measured the dose distributions of the IMRT and VMAT plans based on the videos recorded at a frame rate of 16.67 ms, whereas the MatriXX ResolutionTM had the sampling rate of 20 ms. The accumulated dose images of the developed dosimeter were compared with the dose maps measured by conventional dosimeters. The average gamma passing rates were 98.28% and 98.01% in the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, when computing the difference between the proposed system and MatriXX ResolutionTM for solid water phantoms of 5 cm with the 3%/3-mm gamma criteria. The average gamma passing rates computed between the proposed system and radiochromic film were 99.35% and 99.27% for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, with the 3%/3-mm gamma criteria. The gamma analysis was performed in a single segment of IMRT and a single CP of VMAT, and the average gamma passing rates were 95.25% and 80.76% for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively, with the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria. The dose rates assigned by LINAC were predicted from the sequentially recorded dose images with a high sampling frequency and were verified to be well-matched with the log files.
The accuracy of the MLC position is an important component of VMAT when delivering a prescribed dose to a patient. The MLC positioning can be verified with a high accuracy from the log files generated by the LINAC after beam irradiation. However, the MLC positions in the log files were recorded using an indirect method, such as counting the number of motor rotations for leaf extension. The uncertainties of the log file-based MLC positioning validation were evaluated using various methods [74-78]. To enhance the accuracy and minimize these uncertainties, the developed system employs the direct measurement of MLC positions with high speed and precision. This approach offers real-time validation, potentially reducing errors in treatment delivery and improving the reliability of the mechanical QA of medical LINACs. By implementing this direct measurement technique, the radiation treatment can achieve a more accurate dose distribution, minimize critical organ irradiation, and improve the patient outcomes through a more precise and effective radiotherapy treatments.
The feasibility of the mechanical QA performance in the proposed system was evaluated through the picket fence test recommended in the TG-142 report. Through the picket fence test, the proposed system proved its reliability with acceptable accuracy in the mechanical QA of LINAC. Specifically, the proposed system predicted the MLC position of the VMAT after applying the WaveUNet-based MLC mask extraction algorithm to the single CP dose map. Although the single CP dose map included a high noise due to the intrinsic characteristics of the camera sensor, the WaveUNet-based MLC mask extraction algorithm allowed real-time mechanical QA of LINAC to be performed in the proposed system. However, several clinical cases of the VMAT plans showed real-time MLC positioning errors reaching 4 mm. The large difference between the predicted and reference MLC positions was related to the sampling rate of the camera and the noise in the single-frame dose map. The frame rate of the developed dosimeter was set to 60 FPS; however, a time interval of 16.67 ms was induced in the single frame. The time interval of the single frame resulted in motion blurs in the recorded video when the MLCs were continuously modulated at speeds of up to 27.58 mm s-1 during the beam-on time. Furthermore, in the VMAT case, the signal-to-noise ratio of the single frame was reduced due to the insufficient time of acquiring the signal from the camera sensor. However, it is possible to improve the image quality of the recorded video by using a high-performance recording device. Moreover, the optimization of the MLC mask extraction algorithm, such as WaveUNet in the proposed system can improve the accuracy in MLC position tracking.
A real-time dosimeter using a scintillator plate and a CMOS-based camera was used to analyze the dose rate and MLC positioning error for VMAT [38]. In a published study, the usability of the developed dosimeter was successfully proved by tracking the MLC positions and measuring the dose rates in the VMAT plans with fixed dose rates in sequences between two CPs [79]. In this study, the highly sampled dose maps measured using the developed system allowed for real-time analysis. The dosimeter was validated for the dosimetric and mechanical performances in the IMRT and VMAT plans with a perpendicular composite delivery. Not only the distributions and MLC positions of the static dose rate and radiation field but also those in the dynamic dose rate and radiation field were measured at clinically acceptable levels. Specifically, these dosimetric and mechanical evaluations were performed independently of the machine. TrueBeam STx delivered the prescribed doses in the VMAT plans with consecutively varying dose rates. The proposed system also captured the rapidly changing dose rates and analyzed the dosimetric and mechanical characteristics of the instantaneous dose distribution with a high temporal resolution.
In the present study, we successfully developed an instantaneously interpretable real-time dosimeter for QA in a medical LINAC using a scintillator plate and CMOS-based digital cameras. The dosimeter recorded the scintillation generated by X-rays irradiating the scintillator with a high sampling frequency and converted it into a dose image by applying deep learning-based mask extraction, FT-based dose rate correction, and IRT-based geometric correction. The proposed system fulfills the dosimetric and mechanical performance criteria required for state-of-the-art radiation therapy. The gamma analysis of the 20 clinical cases was clinically acceptable, and the accuracy of MLC positioning met the QA protocol requirement of TG-142.
This work was supported by Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) grant funded by the Korea Government (MOTIE) (P0012971).
The authors have nothing to disclose.
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Conceptualization: Dongyeon Lee, Wonjoong Cheon, Youngyih Han. Data curation: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim. Formal analysis: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Funding acquisition: Youngyih Han. Investigation: Dongyeon Lee, Hyosung Cho, Youngyih Han. Methodology: Dongyeon Lee, Hyosung Cho, Youngyih Han. Project administration: Youngyih Han. Resources: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim, Youngyih Han. Software: Dongyeon Lee, Sungjin Kim, Youngyih Han. Supervision: Youngyih Han. Validation: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Visualization: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Writing – original draft: Dongyeon Lee, Youngyih Han. Writing – review & editing: Youngyih Han.
Table 1 Parameters used in the IRT-based geometric correction for dosimetric and mechanical QA
Parameter | Dosimetric QA | Mechanical QA |
---|---|---|
Source-to-detector distance (mm) | 543.72 | 543.72 |
Source-to-object distance (mm) | 357.71 | 357.71 |
No. of projections | 2 | 2 |
Pixel size (mm) | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Pixel dimension | 1,920×1,080 | 1,920×1,080 |
Voxel size (mm) | 1 | 0.1 |
Voxel dimension | 300×300 | 3,000×3,000 |
Reconstruction algorithm | FISTA | FISTA |
Table 2 Comparisons of the output factor measurements between the ionization chamber (CC13) and proposed dosimeter
Field size [cm2] | Ionization chamber | Proposed dosimeter | Deviation ( | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | Mean ( | Standard deviation (σ | |||
3×3 | 0.8823 | 0.0001 | 0.8897 | 0.0182 | 1.0084±0.0206 | |
5×5 | 0.9288 | 0.0000 | 0.9365 | 0.0207 | 1.0083±0.0223 | |
10×10 | 1.0000 | 0.0001 | 1.0000 | 0.0193 | 1.0000±0.0193 | |
15×15 | 1.0374 | 0.0010 | 1.0391 | 0.0152 | 1.0016±0.0147 | |
20×20 | 1.0636 | 0.0000 | 1.0603 | 0.0136 | 0.9969±0.0128 | |
25×25 | 1.0819 | 0.0000 | 1.0848 | 0.0184 | 1.0027±0.0170 | |
30×30 | 1.0966 | 0.0001 | 1.0911 | 0.0081 | 0.9950±0.0074 |
Table 3 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 IMRT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Field/segment | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 604.15 | 7/65 | 93.64 | 98.69 | 98.33 | 99.85 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 643.58 | 5/66 | 88.63 | 96.66 | 90.44 | 98.91 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 592.20 | 5/48 | 89.36 | 98.63 | 94.39 | 99.45 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 882.45 | 5/54 | 90.25 | 98.86 | 94.94 | 99.27 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 1,138.97 | 5/45 | 89.72 | 97.90 | 91.75 | 98.31 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 605.01 | 5/69 | 95.49 | 99.20 | 95.67 | 99.62 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 918.73 | 5/70 | 86.60 | 96.65 | 93.27 | 99.84 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 2,413.06 | 5/60 | 92.98 | 99.15 | 95.69 | 99.94 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 764.91 | 6/57 | 92.08 | 98.48 | 95.10 | 99.47 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 923.92 | 7/66 | 93.34 | 98.60 | 93.35 | 98.83 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 91.21 | 98.28 | 94.29 | 99.35 |
Table 4 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with the 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for 10 VMAT cases. The gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM and radiochromic film
Patient ID | Site | Tumor volume [cc] | MU | Sequence/CP | MatriXX ResolutionTM | Radiochromic film | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | ||||||
1 | Brain | 6.59 | 471.95 | 2/360 | 94.17 | 98.85 | 96.00 | 99.50 | |
2 | Brain | 28.02 | 501.11 | 2/180 | 88.15 | 98.40 | 97.88 | 99.89 | |
3 | H&N | 68.29 | 428.84 | 2/240 | 92.83 | 99.14 | 95.35 | 99.59 | |
4 | H&N | 19.85 | 717.18 | 2/180 | 90.57 | 98.04 | 98.47 | 99.89 | |
5 | Lung | 4.87 | 593.89 | 2/360 | 88.78 | 96.69 | 91.28 | 98.59 | |
6 | Lung | 79.06 | 538.60 | 2/208 | 93.89 | 96.84 | 94.68 | 99.37 | |
7 | Abdomen | 123.62 | 341.24 | 2/360 | 88.09 | 97.63 | 93.22 | 98.42 | |
8 | Abdomen | 351.05 | 1,164.23 | 2/360 | 89.81 | 98.69 | 93.16 | 99.62 | |
9 | Pelvis | 27.09 | 664.32 | 3/270 | 91.85 | 98.58 | 93.70 | 98.93 | |
10 | Pelvis | 79.15 | 515.39 | 2/360 | 87.30 | 97.23 | 91.15 | 98.86 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 90.54 | 98.01 | 94.49 | 99.27 |
Table 5 Quantitative results of the gamma passing rate with 2%/2-mm and 3%/3-mm gamma criteria for a single segment of the IMRT cases and single CP of the VMAT cases. Gamma analysis was performed between the dose distributions measured from the developed dosimeter and the dose map acquired from MatriXX ResolutionTM
Patient ID | Site | IMRT | VMAT | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Segment | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | CP | 2%/2-mm | 3%/3-mm | |||
1 | Brain | 65 | 86.01 | 95.17 | 68 | 65.97 | 71.43 | |
2 | Brain | 66 | 87.92 | 97.86 | 32 | 70.84 | 86.28 | |
3 | H&N | 48 | 90.30 | 94.92 | 46 | 63.55 | 70.53 | |
4 | H&N | 54 | 91.06 | 95.13 | 46 | 63.20 | 77.67 | |
5 | Lung | 45 | 85.61 | 94.60 | 44 | 67.54 | 81.59 | |
6 | Lung | 69 | 88.52 | 93.96 | 38 | 68.51 | 85.93 | |
7 | Abdomen | 70 | 86.85 | 94.41 | 78 | 62.52 | 84.25 | |
8 | Abdomen | 60 | 89.78 | 93.62 | 72 | 64.07 | 84.67 | |
9 | Pelvis | 56 | 94.68 | 97.70 | 55 | 62.53 | 83.12 | |
10 | Pelvis | 66 | 81.46 | 95.14 | 36 | 67.55 | 82.08 | |
Average gamma passing rate | 88.22 | 95.25 | 65.63 | 80.76 |
Table 6 The MAE calculated from the predicted MLC positions and log files for the IMRT and VMAT cases
Case | Bank | Patient ID | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
IMRT | A (mm) | 1.0473 | 1.4893 | 1.8461 | 1.2076 | 1.9972 | 2.0938 | 2.1229 | 2.3952 | 1.3517 | 1.4592 |
B (mm) | 0.9529 | 1.1972 | 1.4305 | 1.2470 | 1.5924 | 1.5630 | 1.8516 | 2.1591 | 1.1917 | 1.5364 | |
VMAT | A (mm) | 2.5163 | 1.9565 | 2.2788 | 4.2974 | 2.5680 | 2.7575 | 3.8589 | 2.0460 | 2.7376 | 3.0903 |
B (mm) | 2.7433 | 1.9008 | 2.6042 | 4.3662 | 2.4039 | 2.3258 | 4.0400 | 1.5570 | 2.7869 | 2.9853 |
pISSN 2508-4445
eISSN 2508-4453
Formerly ISSN 1226-5829
Frequency: Quarterly