Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine whether the EPID detector can serve as an effective tool for interfractional dose control. Accurate radiotherapy delivery is vital for successful treatment, prompting advancements in dosimetry methods, particularly for dynamic techniques. Linear accelerators use kilovoltage and megavoltage X-rays to verify patient positioning, a standard practice essential for minimizing geometric and dosimetric errors. While integrated imaging systems typically use orthogonal radiographs, this method increases radiation exposure and fails to account for intra-fractional movements, risking undetected errors. To ensure patients receive the planned radiation dose, in-vivo dosimetry is performed by measuring the dose at various locations on the patient's body, which simultaneously verifies correct positioning. Discrepancies can reveal incorrect positioning or significant movements, thus enhancing treatment accuracy. This study investigates transit dosimetry using Electronic Portal Imaging Devices (EPID) to verify patient positioning during treatment. It establishes tolerance ranges and response criteria for the head and neck and pelvic areas, providing insights into the concordance between planned and actual dose distributions. Material and methods: The analysis included 30 patients treated with dynamic techniques in the pelvic (Pelvis) and head and neck (Head&Neck) areas. For each fraction, a fluence map was recorded using the EPID detector. This allowed for repeated comparisons between summary fluence maps across treatment fractions, totaling 1552 comparisons for the Head&Neck area and 2339 for the Pelvis area. To evaluate the correspondence between fluence map pairs, gamma indices were calculated using specified accuracy criteria. Results: Statistical analysis employed Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test, establishing significant correspondence within defined limits. For the Head&Neck area, repeatability was found within 3 mm and 4%; for the Pelvis area, it was within 4 mm and 4%. Conclusions: This method of verifying treatment repeatability is practical for clinical use, requiring no additional dose and not hindering treatment delivery.
Read full abstract