Loading…
Fiducial detection and registration for 3D IMRT QA with organ‐specific dose information
Purpose Two‐dimensional (2D) IMRT QA has been widely performed in Radiation Oncology clinic. However, concerns regarding its sensitivity in detecting delivery errors and its clinical meaning have been raised in publications. In this study, a robust methodology of three‐dimensional (3D) IMRT QA using...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2021-05, Vol.22 (5), p.24-35 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Purpose
Two‐dimensional (2D) IMRT QA has been widely performed in Radiation Oncology clinic. However, concerns regarding its sensitivity in detecting delivery errors and its clinical meaning have been raised in publications. In this study, a robust methodology of three‐dimensional (3D) IMRT QA using fiducial registration and structure‐mapping was proposed to acquire organ‐specific dose information.
Methods
Computed tomography (CT) markers were placed on the PRESAGE dosimeter as fiducials before CT simulation. Subsequently, the images were transferred to the treatment planning system to create a verification plan for the examined treatment plan. Patient’s CT images were registered to the CT images of the dosimeter for structure mapping according to the positions of the fiducials. After irradiation, the 3D dose distribution was read‐out by an optical‐CT (OCT) scanner with fiducials shown on the OCT dose images. An automatic localization algorithm was developed in MATLAB to register the markers in the OCT images to those in the CT images of the dosimeter. SlicerRT was used to show and analyze the results. Fiducial registration error was acquired by measuring the discrepancies in 20 fiducial registrations, and thus the fiducial localization error and target registration error (TRE) was estimated.
Results
Dosimetry comparison between the calculated and measured dose distribution in various forms were presented, including 2D isodose lines comparison, 3D isodose surfaces with patient’s anatomical structures, 2D and 3D gamma index, dose volume histogram and 3D view of gamma failing points. From the analysis of 20 fiducial registrations, fiducial registration error was measured to be 0.62 mm and fiducial localization error was calculated to be 0.44 mm. Target registration uncertainty of the proposed methodology was estimated to be within 0.3 mm in the area of dose measurement.
Conclusions
This study proposed a robust methodology of 3D measurement‐based IMRT QA for organ‐specific dose comparison and demonstrated its clinical feasibility. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
DOI: | 10.1002/acm2.13237 |