An international film dosimetry intercomparison to establish a multi-center audit framework.

audit film dosimetry quality assurance

Journal

Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised: 14 08 2024
received: 20 12 2023
accepted: 06 09 2024
medline: 24 9 2024
pubmed: 24 9 2024
entrez: 24 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In 2021, a Technical Meeting was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where it was recommended that a standardized method for assessing the accuracy of film dose calculations should be established. To design an audit that evaluates the accuracy of film dosimetry processes. To propose a framework for identifying out-of-tolerance results and to perform an international pilot study to test the audit design. Six members of an international Dosimetry Audit Network (DAN) developed an audit for radiochromic film dosimetry. A single host center provided the materials to each participating DAN member to conduct the audits. Materials included: (1) a set of two irradiated audit films (10 Sq: 10 cm × 10 cm, 15 Sq: 15 cm × 15 cm), (2) a reference calibration film set, and (3) a blank sheet of film. The participants were blinded to the dose and tasked with producing dose maps using their standard film dosimetry process. Average Region-Of-Interest (ROI: 2 cm × 2 cm) dose was measured from the dose maps and compared to the known dose. In the audit, all participants used their local scanning and software protocols. Film calibration was performed in two distinct ways: (1) using a calibration film set which was provided by the host center and (2) using a calibration film set which was locally irradiated. Several variations of the audit were also performed to examine how scanning and software processing can affect film dosimetry results. In the first variation of the audit (VariantA), a set of film scans was processed using five different software solutions. In the second variation of the audit (VariantB), all films were scanned on the same scanner and processed using two in-house software solutions. Taking one film scan from each participant, the standard deviations (1σ) (SD) in the dose returned from the host calibration and returned from the local calibration were ±7.2% and ±6.5% respectively, with variations from -12.4% to 12.9% of the known dose. The larger dose variations in the data set were attributed to the corrections applied for variations in scanner brightness during processing and incorrectly assigned calibration doses. When the raw image data set was processed by an expert user of each software solution (VariantA) the SDs were ±2.7% and ±3.7% for in-house and vendor-based software, respectively. When the films were scanned on a single scanner and processed with the two in-house software solutions (VariantB) the results had a SD of ±2.3%. An audit has been designed and tested for radiotherapy film dosimetry at an international level. A framework for diagnosing issues within a film dosimetry process has been proposed that could be used to audit centers that use film as a dosimeter. Incorporating quality assurance throughout the film process is important in obtaining accurate and consistent film dosimetry. A better understanding of vendor-based software systems is necessary for users to process accurate and consistent film dosimetry.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In 2021, a Technical Meeting was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where it was recommended that a standardized method for assessing the accuracy of film dose calculations should be established.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To design an audit that evaluates the accuracy of film dosimetry processes. To propose a framework for identifying out-of-tolerance results and to perform an international pilot study to test the audit design.
METHODS METHODS
Six members of an international Dosimetry Audit Network (DAN) developed an audit for radiochromic film dosimetry. A single host center provided the materials to each participating DAN member to conduct the audits. Materials included: (1) a set of two irradiated audit films (10 Sq: 10 cm × 10 cm, 15 Sq: 15 cm × 15 cm), (2) a reference calibration film set, and (3) a blank sheet of film. The participants were blinded to the dose and tasked with producing dose maps using their standard film dosimetry process. Average Region-Of-Interest (ROI: 2 cm × 2 cm) dose was measured from the dose maps and compared to the known dose. In the audit, all participants used their local scanning and software protocols. Film calibration was performed in two distinct ways: (1) using a calibration film set which was provided by the host center and (2) using a calibration film set which was locally irradiated. Several variations of the audit were also performed to examine how scanning and software processing can affect film dosimetry results. In the first variation of the audit (VariantA), a set of film scans was processed using five different software solutions. In the second variation of the audit (VariantB), all films were scanned on the same scanner and processed using two in-house software solutions.
RESULTS RESULTS
Taking one film scan from each participant, the standard deviations (1σ) (SD) in the dose returned from the host calibration and returned from the local calibration were ±7.2% and ±6.5% respectively, with variations from -12.4% to 12.9% of the known dose. The larger dose variations in the data set were attributed to the corrections applied for variations in scanner brightness during processing and incorrectly assigned calibration doses. When the raw image data set was processed by an expert user of each software solution (VariantA) the SDs were ±2.7% and ±3.7% for in-house and vendor-based software, respectively. When the films were scanned on a single scanner and processed with the two in-house software solutions (VariantB) the results had a SD of ±2.3%.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
An audit has been designed and tested for radiotherapy film dosimetry at an international level. A framework for diagnosing issues within a film dosimetry process has been proposed that could be used to audit centers that use film as a dosimeter. Incorporating quality assurance throughout the film process is important in obtaining accurate and consistent film dosimetry. A better understanding of vendor-based software systems is necessary for users to process accurate and consistent film dosimetry.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39316455
doi: 10.1002/mp.17428
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s). Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Aland T, Kairn T, Kenny J. Evaluation of a gafchromic EBT2 film dosimetry system for radiotherapy quality assurance. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2011;34(2):251‐260. doi:10.1007/s13246‐011‐0072‐6
Smyth L, Alves A, Collins K, Beveridge S. Gafchromic EBT3 film provides equivalent dosimetric performance to EBT‐XD film for stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024. doi:10.1007/s13246‐024‐01430‐z
Marroquin EL, González JH, López MC, Barajas JV, García‐Garduño O. Evaluation of the uncertainty in an EBT3 film dosimetry system utilizing net optical density. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(5):466‐481. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6262
Palmer AL, Nash D. Radiochromic film dosimetry in radiotherapy: a survey of current practice in the United Kingdom. Br J Radiol. 2024;97(1155):646‐651. doi:10.1093/bjr/tqae008
Lewis D, Chan MF. Correcting lateral response artifacts from flatbed scanners for radiochromic film dosimetry. Med Phys. 2016;42(1):416‐429. doi:10.1118/1.4903758
Ferreira BC, Lopes MC, Capela M. Evaluation of an Epson flatbed scanner to read Gafchromic EBT films for radiation dosimetry. Phys Medi Biol. 2009;54(4):1073‐1085. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/54/4/017
Devic S, Tomic N, Lewis D. Reference radiochromic film dosimetry: review of technical aspects. Physica Med. 2016;32(4):541‐556. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.02.008
Niroomand‐Rad A, Chiu‐Tsao ST, Grams MP, et al. Report of AAPM task group 235 Radiochromic film dosimetry: an update to TG‐55. Med Phys. 2020;47(12):5986‐6025. doi:10.1002/mp.14497
Liu K, Jorge PG, Tailor R, Moeckli R, Schuler E. Comprehensive evaluation and new recommendations in the use of Gafchromic EBT3 film. Med Phys. 2023;50(11):7252‐7262. doi:10.1002/mp.16593
Dreindl R, Georg D, Stock M. Radiochromic film dosimetry: considerations on precision and accuracy for EBT2 and EBT3 type films. J Med Phys. 2014;24(2):153‐163. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2013.08.002
Reinhardt S, Hillbrand M, Wilkens JJ, Assmann W. Comparison of Gafchromic EBT2 and EBT3 films for clinical photon and proton beams. Med Phys. 2012;39(8):5257‐5262. doi:10.1118/1.4737890
Palmer A, Nash D, Polak W, Wilby S. Evaluation of a new radiochromic film dosimeter, Gafchromic EBT4, for VMAT, SABR and HDR treatment delivery verification. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(17):175003. doi:10.1088/1361‐6560/aceb48
Lewis D, Micke A, Yu X, Chan MF. An efficient protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry combining calibration and measurement in a single scan. Med Phys. 2012;39(10):6339‐6350. doi:10.1118/1.4754797
Hussein M, Clark CH, Nisbet A. Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy—towards good practice. Physica Med. 2017;36:1‐11. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.001
Palmer AL, Bradley DA, Nisbet A. Evaluation and mitigation of potential errors in radiochromic film dosimetry due to film curvature at scanning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015b;16(2):425‐431. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5141
Schoenfeld AA, Wieker S, Harder D, Poppe B. The origin of the flatbed scanner artifacts in radiochromic film dosimetry—key experiments and theoretical descriptions. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(21):7704‐7724. doi:10.1088/0031‐9155/61/21/7704
International Atomic Energy Agency. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy, Technical Reports Series No. 398 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna. 2024. doi:10.61092/iaea.ve7q‐y94k
Mizuno H, Takahashi Y, Tanaka A, et al. Homogeneity of Gafchromic EBT2 film among different lot numbers. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(4):198‐205. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3763
Girard F, Bouchard H, Lacroix F. Reference dosimetry using radiochromic film. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(6):339‐353. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v13i6.3994
Reinstein LE, Gluckman GR. Optical density dependence on postirradiation temperature and time for MD‐55‐2 type radiochromic film. Med Phys. 1999;26(3):478‐484. doi:10.1118/1.598538
Rink A, Lewis DF, Varma S, Vitkin A, Jaffray DA. Temperature and hydration effects on absorbance spectra and radiation sensitivity of a radiochromic medium. Med Phys. 2008;35(10):4545‐4555. doi:10.1118/1.2975483
Miura H, Ozawa S, Okazue T, Enosaki T, Nagata Y. Characterization of scanning orientation and lateral response artifact for EBT4 Gafchromic film. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24(8). doi:10.1002/acm2.13992
Pocza T, Zongor Z, Melles‐Bencsik B, Tatai‐Szabo DZ, Major T, Pesznyak C. Comparison of three film analysis softwares using EBT2 and EBT3 films in radiotherapy. Radiol Oncol. 2020;54(4):505‐512. doi:10.2478/raon‐2020‐0049

Auteurs

Sabeena Beveridge (S)

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, Victoria, Australia.

Andrew Alves (A)

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, Victoria, Australia.

Mohammad Hussein (M)

National Physical Laboratory, Middlesex, UK.

Catharine H Clark (CH)

National Physical Laboratory, Middlesex, UK.
Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Dept Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, London, UK.

Núria Jornet (N)

Servei de Radiofísica I Radioprotecció, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Claudio C B Viegas (CCB)

National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Brigitte Reniers (B)

Universiteit Hasselt, CMK, NuTeC, Diepenbeek, Belgium.

Paola Elisa Alvarez (PE)

IROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Godfrey Azangwe (G)

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Seibersdorf, Austria.

Krzysztof Chelminski (K)

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Seibersdorf, Austria.

Alexis Dimitriadis (A)

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Seibersdorf, Austria.

Pavel Kazantsev (P)

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Seibersdorf, Austria.

Jamema Swamidas (J)

Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Seibersdorf, Austria.

Classifications MeSH