Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Dosimetry Audit of IMRT and VMAT External Radiotherapy Techniques: Multi-Institutional Study in East Java Province Maqsuroh, Fiki Hurum; Zahro, Ummu Mar’atu; Dzulfikar, Ahmad Zaki; Harfiyyah, Vivin Fashihatil; Hentihu, Fatimah Kunti; Pawiro, Supriyanto Ardjo
Indonesian Journal of Cancer Vol 19, No 4 (2025): December
Publisher : http://dharmais.co.id/

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33371/ijoc.v19i4.1258

Abstract

Background: The Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) application is utilized in the Linear Accelerator (LINAC) with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) methods, both of which include advanced methods of administering radiotherapy, which aim to improve dose distribution and increase local tumour control by adjusting the external beam into a shape-specific tumour. Dosimetry audit is a crucial quality assurance procedure in radiotherapy facilities, ensuring patient dosing quality. This study aimed to simulate the dosimetry audit method of IMRT techniques and VMAT with point dose and dose delivery distribution evaluation. Method: The phantom utilized in this study was constructed from acrylic material and featured a C-shaped insert. It comprised a main body and an insert, with the body measuring 15 × 15 × 15 cm and the insert measuring 6 × 6 × 6 cm. The main body was fabricated from polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) with a density of 1.17 g/cm³, serving as a surrogate for human tissue. The insert, composed of a resin and carbon powder mixture with a density of 1.19 g/cm³, was designed to represent both the organ at risk (OAR) and the planning target volume (PTV) in the study. Phantom images were taken with the center of the CT simulator, then radiation planning was performed with a PTV dose of 4 Gy/2 fractions (D95% 95%, D2% 107%, and Dmax 110%) and a maximum OAR dose of 2.8 Gy. This study was conducted at four radiotherapy centres in East Java province by conducting dosimetry audits on point doses using TLD and dose distribution by evaluating gamma index analysis using EBT3 Film.Results: The results of point dose readings using TLD at all centres and radiation techniques were still within the tolerance limit, namely ± 5%. Apart from that, to evaluate the gamma index using film, at three centres with the 3%/3mm criteria, the gamma passing rate was 90%. Conclusion: This method can be used as a reference in conducting dosimetry audits in radiotherapy using TLD and film
Gamma passing rate evaluation for IMRT and VMAT techniques based on gantry angles Zahro, Ummu Mar'atu; Zahroh, Fatimatuz; Maqsuroh, Fiki Hurum; Wibowo, Wahyu Edy
Journal of Physics: Theories and Applications Vol 9, No 2 (2025): Journal of Physics: Theories and Applications
Publisher : Universitas Sebelas Maret

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/jphystheor-appl.v9i2.109109

Abstract

Introduction: The accuracy of radiation dose delivery in advanced techniques such as Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is highly dependent on the consistency of gantry angle performance. This study aims to evaluate the effect of gantry angle variations on the gamma passing rate (GPR) in IMRT and VMAT treatment plans. Methods: IMRT and VMAT plans were created using the Monaco Treatment Planning System on a homogeneous slab phantom and delivered within a range of gantry angles, including 90°, 180°, 270°, and 360°. Measurements were performed using the 2D array PTW Octavius 1500 that delivered by Linac Elekta Synergy and analyzed with the Verisoft software, applying a 2%/2 mm gamma index with a 10% threshold and a 97% gamma passing rate criterion. Results: All plans achieved GPR above 97%. VMAT demonstrated higher GPR values than IMRT at gantry angles of 90°, 180°, 270°, with the largest difference of 0.8% observed at 270°. IMRT showed a slightly higher GRP value than VMAT at range gantry 360° with a difference of 0.1%.  Conclusion: The higher GPR value observed in VMAT indicates greater stability in relation to gantry angle variations. Although, IMRT performed slightly better at 360°, the difference was minimal. In general, gantry angle dependence was observed in both techniques, but the variation was not clinically significant.