Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A round-robin gamma stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry interinstitution comparison of calibration protocols

RE. Drzymala, PE. Alvarez, G. Bednarz, JD. Bourland, LA. DeWerd, L. Ma, SG. Meltsner, G. Neyman, J. Novotny, PL. Petti, MJ. Rivard, AS. Shiu, SJ. Goetsch,

. 2015 ; 42 (11) : 6745-56.

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc16028015

PURPOSE: Absorbed dose calibration for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery is challenging due to the unique geometric conditions, dosimetry characteristics, and nonstandard field size of these devices. Members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 178 on Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery Dosimetry and Quality Assurance have participated in a round-robin exchange of calibrated measurement instrumentation and phantoms exploring two approved and two proposed calibration protocols or formalisms on ten gamma radiosurgery units. The objectives of this study were to benchmark and compare new formalisms to existing calibration methods, while maintaining traceability to U.S. primary dosimetry calibration laboratory standards. METHODS: Nine institutions made measurements using ten gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units in three different 160 mm diameter spherical phantoms [acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, Solid Water, and liquid water] and in air using a positioning jig. Two calibrated miniature ionization chambers and one calibrated electrometer were circulated for all measurements. Reference dose-rates at the phantom center were determined using the well-established AAPM TG-21 or TG-51 dose calibration protocols and using two proposed dose calibration protocols/formalisms: an in-air protocol and a formalism proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) working group for small and nonstandard radiation fields. Each institution's results were normalized to the dose-rate determined at that institution using the TG-21 protocol in the ABS phantom. RESULTS: Percentages of dose-rates within 1.5% of the reference dose-rate (TG-21+ABS phantom) for the eight chamber-protocol-phantom combinations were the following: 88% for TG-21, 70% for TG-51, 93% for the new IAEA nonstandard-field formalism, and 65% for the new in-air protocol. Averages and standard deviations for dose-rates over all measurements relative to the TG-21+ABS dose-rate were 0.999±0.009 (TG-21), 0.991±0.013 (TG-51), 1.000±0.009 (IAEA), and 1.009±0.012 (in-air). There were no statistically significant differences (i.e., p>0.05) between the two ionization chambers for the TG-21 protocol applied to all dosimetry phantoms. The mean results using the TG-51 protocol were notably lower than those for the other dosimetry protocols, with a standard deviation 2-3 times larger. The in-air protocol was not statistically different from TG-21 for the A16 chamber in the liquid water or ABS phantoms (p=0.300 and p=0.135) but was statistically different from TG-21 for the PTW chamber in all phantoms (p=0.006 for Solid Water, 0.014 for liquid water, and 0.020 for ABS). Results of IAEA formalism were statistically different from TG-21 results only for the combination of the A16 chamber with the liquid water phantom (p=0.017). In the latter case, dose-rates measured with the two protocols differed by only 0.4%. For other phantom-ionization-chamber combinations, the new IAEA formalism was not statistically different from TG-21. CONCLUSIONS: Although further investigation is needed to validate the new protocols for other ionization chambers, these results can serve as a reference to quantitatively compare different calibration protocols and ionization chambers if a particular method is chosen by a professional society to serve as a standardized calibration protocol.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16028015
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20161020115908.0
007      
ta
008      
161005s2015 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1118/1.4934376 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1118/1.4934376 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26520764
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Drzymala, R E $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63110.
245    12
$a A round-robin gamma stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry interinstitution comparison of calibration protocols / $c RE. Drzymala, PE. Alvarez, G. Bednarz, JD. Bourland, LA. DeWerd, L. Ma, SG. Meltsner, G. Neyman, J. Novotny, PL. Petti, MJ. Rivard, AS. Shiu, SJ. Goetsch,
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Absorbed dose calibration for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery is challenging due to the unique geometric conditions, dosimetry characteristics, and nonstandard field size of these devices. Members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 178 on Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery Dosimetry and Quality Assurance have participated in a round-robin exchange of calibrated measurement instrumentation and phantoms exploring two approved and two proposed calibration protocols or formalisms on ten gamma radiosurgery units. The objectives of this study were to benchmark and compare new formalisms to existing calibration methods, while maintaining traceability to U.S. primary dosimetry calibration laboratory standards. METHODS: Nine institutions made measurements using ten gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units in three different 160 mm diameter spherical phantoms [acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, Solid Water, and liquid water] and in air using a positioning jig. Two calibrated miniature ionization chambers and one calibrated electrometer were circulated for all measurements. Reference dose-rates at the phantom center were determined using the well-established AAPM TG-21 or TG-51 dose calibration protocols and using two proposed dose calibration protocols/formalisms: an in-air protocol and a formalism proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) working group for small and nonstandard radiation fields. Each institution's results were normalized to the dose-rate determined at that institution using the TG-21 protocol in the ABS phantom. RESULTS: Percentages of dose-rates within 1.5% of the reference dose-rate (TG-21+ABS phantom) for the eight chamber-protocol-phantom combinations were the following: 88% for TG-21, 70% for TG-51, 93% for the new IAEA nonstandard-field formalism, and 65% for the new in-air protocol. Averages and standard deviations for dose-rates over all measurements relative to the TG-21+ABS dose-rate were 0.999±0.009 (TG-21), 0.991±0.013 (TG-51), 1.000±0.009 (IAEA), and 1.009±0.012 (in-air). There were no statistically significant differences (i.e., p>0.05) between the two ionization chambers for the TG-21 protocol applied to all dosimetry phantoms. The mean results using the TG-51 protocol were notably lower than those for the other dosimetry protocols, with a standard deviation 2-3 times larger. The in-air protocol was not statistically different from TG-21 for the A16 chamber in the liquid water or ABS phantoms (p=0.300 and p=0.135) but was statistically different from TG-21 for the PTW chamber in all phantoms (p=0.006 for Solid Water, 0.014 for liquid water, and 0.020 for ABS). Results of IAEA formalism were statistically different from TG-21 results only for the combination of the A16 chamber with the liquid water phantom (p=0.017). In the latter case, dose-rates measured with the two protocols differed by only 0.4%. For other phantom-ionization-chamber combinations, the new IAEA formalism was not statistically different from TG-21. CONCLUSIONS: Although further investigation is needed to validate the new protocols for other ionization chambers, these results can serve as a reference to quantitatively compare different calibration protocols and ionization chambers if a particular method is chosen by a professional society to serve as a standardized calibration protocol.
650    _2
$a vzduch $7 D000388
650    _2
$a kalibrace $x normy $7 D002138
650    _2
$a klinické protokoly $x normy $7 D002985
650    _2
$a záření gama $x terapeutické užití $7 D005720
650    _2
$a fantomy radiodiagnostické $7 D019047
650    _2
$a radiometrie $x metody $x normy $7 D011874
650    _2
$a radiochirurgie $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $x normy $7 D016634
650    _2
$a celková dávka radioterapie $7 D011879
650    _2
$a voda $7 D014867
651    _2
$a Spojené státy americké $7 D014481
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Alvarez, P E $u Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030. $7 gn_A_00005110
700    1_
$a Bednarz, G $u Radiation Oncology Department, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15232.
700    1_
$a Bourland, J D $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157.
700    1_
$a DeWerd, L A $u Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53705.
700    1_
$a Ma, L $u Department of Radiation Oncology, University California San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143.
700    1_
$a Meltsner, S G $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710.
700    1_
$a Neyman, G $u Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195.
700    1_
$a Novotny, J $u Medical Physics Department, Hospital Na Homolce, Prague 15030, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Petti, P L $u Gamma Knife Center, Washington Hospital Healthcare System, Fremont, California 94538.
700    1_
$a Rivard, M J $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02111.
700    1_
$a Shiu, A S $u Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033.
700    1_
$a Goetsch, S J $u San Diego Medical Physics, Inc., La Jolla, California 92037.
773    0_
$w MED00003245 $t Medical physics $x 0094-2405 $g Roč. 42, č. 11 (2015), s. 6745-56
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26520764 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20161005 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20161020120316 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1166329 $s 952645
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 42 $c 11 $d 6745-56 $i 0094-2405 $m Medical physics $n Med Phys $x MED00003245
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20161005

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace