S. C. Fisica Sanitaria Firenze-Empoli, Medical Physics Unit of Radiation Oncology Dept., Azienda Sanitaria USL Toscana Centro Florence, Via dell'Antella 58, 50012, Bagno a Ripoli, Firenze, Italy.
UOC di Fisica Sanitaria, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Strahlenther Onkol. 2021 Jul;197(7):633-643. doi: 10.1007/s00066-021-01749-6. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
To investigate critical aspects and effectiveness of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) tests obtained by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in a multicenter and multisystem context.
Eight centers with three commercial systems-SoftDiso (SD, Best Medical Italy, Chianciano, Italy), Dosimetry Check (DC, Math Resolution, LCC), and PerFRACTION (PF, Sun Nuclear Corporation, SNC, Melbourne, FL)-collected IVD results for a total of 2002 patients and 32,276 tests. Data are summarized for IVD software, radiotherapy technique, and anatomical site. Every center reported the number of patients and tests analyzed, and the percentage of tests outside of the tolerance level (OTL%). OTL% was categorized as being due to incorrect patient setup, incorrect use of immobilization devices, incorrect dose computation, anatomical variations, and unknown causes.
The three systems use different approaches and customized alert indices, based on local protocols. For Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments OTL% mean values were up to 8.9% for SD, 18.0% for DC, and 16.0% for PF. Errors due to "anatomical variations" for head and neck were up to 9.0% for SD and DC and 8.0% for PF systems, while for abdomen and pelvis/prostate treatments were up to 9%, 17.0%, and 9.0% for SD, DC, and PF, respectively. The comparison among techniques gave 3% for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, 7.0% (range 4.7-8.9%) for VMAT, 10.4% (range 7.0-12.2%) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 13.2% (range 8.8-21.0%) for 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy.
The results obtained with different IVD software and among centers were consistent and showed an acceptable homogeneity. EPID IVD was effective in intercepting important errors.
在多中心和多系统环境中,研究电子射野影像装置(EPID)获得的体内剂量学(IVD)测试的关键方面和有效性。
8 个中心使用 3 种商业系统(意大利贝斯特医疗的 SoftDiso(SD)、Math Resolution 的 Dosimetry Check(DC)和 Sun Nuclear Corporation 的 PerFRACTION(PF))收集了总共 2002 名患者和 32276 次 IVD 测试的结果。对 IVD 软件、放疗技术和解剖部位的数据进行了总结。每个中心报告了分析的患者和测试数量,以及超出耐受水平(OTL%)的测试百分比。OTL%归因于不正确的患者设置、固定装置使用不当、剂量计算错误、解剖变异和未知原因。
这三种系统基于当地方案使用不同的方法和定制的警报指标。对于容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT),SD、DC 和 PF 的 OTL%平均值分别高达 8.9%、18.0%和 16.0%。由于头颈部的“解剖变异”导致的错误,SD 和 DC 高达 9.0%,PF 系统高达 8.0%,而对于腹部和骨盆/前列腺治疗,SD、DC 和 PF 分别高达 9%、17.0%和 9.0%。技术比较结果为立体定向体部放射治疗为 3%、VMAT 为 7.0%(范围为 4.7-8.9%)、调强放射治疗为 10.4%(范围为 7.0-12.2%)、3D 适形放射治疗为 13.2%(范围为 8.8-21.0%)。
不同的 IVD 软件和中心获得的结果是一致的,表现出可接受的同质性。EPID IVD 有效地拦截了重要的错误。