Comparison of Gamma Pass Rate between the Dose-to-Water and Dose-to-Medium Reporting Modes for Patient-Specific QA Using a Helical Diode Array Dosimeter with a Fixed Phantom Density

Introduction: To compare the measured dose distributions to calculated ones in dose-to-water (Dw) and dose-to-medium (Dm) reporting modes for simple plans and patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using ArcCHECK with a fixed phantom density. Methods: The recommended density value of 1.18 g/cm3 for Acuros XB and X-ray voxel Monte Carlo was assigned to ArcCHECK on CT images. A total of 45 simple plans, including a 1-field plan, a 3-field plan, a 4-field plan, a half-arc plan from 270° to 90°, and a full-arc plan, were assessed. Subsequently, the patient-specific 96 IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated. Gamma analysis with a 3% normalized global dose error and a 3 mm distance-to-agreement criteria (γ3%G/3mm) was performed in the Dw and Dm. The change in γ3%G/3mm between Dw and Dm were statistically analyzed using JMPPro11 software. Results: The median values of γ3%G/3mm for all simple plans for Dw and Dm were 98.1% (range, 75.2% - 100%) and 95.5% (range, 23.7% - 100%), respectively (p 0.01). In the patient-specific IMRT and VMAT plans, the median values of γ3%G/3mm for Dw and Dm were 98.6% (range, 90.1% - 100%) and 90.5% (range, 38.5% - 97.2%), respectively (p 0.01). Conclusion: Our results showed that the calculated and measured dose distributions were in good agreement for Dw, but were not for Dm. From the viewpoint of the rationale of dosimetry, Dw shows better agreement with measured dose distribution when using the fixedphantom density recommended by the vendor.

Variation in patient dose due to differences in calibration and dosimetry protocols

For precise and accurate patient dose delivery,the dosimetry system must be calibrated properly according to the recommendations of standard dosimetry protocols such as TG-51 and TRS-398. However, the dosimetry protocol followed by a calibration laboratory is usually different from the protocols that are followed by different clinics, which may result in variations in the patient dose.Our prime objective in this study was to investigate the effect of the two protocols on dosimetry measurements.Dose measurements were performed for a Co-60 teletherapy unit and a high-energy Varian linear accelerator with 6 and 15 MV photon and 6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV electron beams, following the recommendations and procedures of the AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 dosimetry protocols. The dosimetry systems used for this study were calibrated in a Co-60 radiation beam at the Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory(SSDL) PINSTECH,Pakistan, following the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The ratio of the measured absorbed doses to water in clinical setting,D_w(TG-51/TRS-398), was 0.999 and 0.997 for 6 and15 MV photon beams,whereas these ratios were 1.013,1.009, 1.003, and 1.000 for 6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV electron beams, respectively. This difference in the absorbed dosesto-water D_w ratio may be attributed mainly due to beam quality(K_Q) and ion recombination correction factor.