Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 5, 2019

Sensitivity of the IQM and MatriXX detectors in megavolt photon beams

Oluwaseyi Michael Oderinde, Freek du Plessis

Summary:

Aim This study focused on evaluating the sensitivity of integral quality monitoring (IQM®) system and MatriXX detectors. These two detectors are recommended for radiotherapy pre-treatment quality assurance (QA). Background IQM is a large wedged-shaped ionisation chamber mounted to the linear accelerator (linac) head in practice. MatriXX consists of an array of ionisation chambers also attached to the linac head. Materials and methods In this study, the dosimetric performance and sensitivity of MatriXX and IQM detectors were evaluated using the following characteristics: reproducibility, linearity, error detection capability and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans of the head and neck, thorax and pelvic regions. Results This study indicates that the signal responses of the large ionisation chamber device (IQM) and the small pixel array of ionisation chambers device (MatriXX) are reproducible, linear and sensitive to MLC positional errors, backup jaw positional errors and dose errors. The local percentage differences for dose errors of 1%, 2%, and 3% were, respectively, within 0.35–8.23%, 0.78–16.21%, and 1.10–24.41% for the IQM device. While for the MatriXX detector, the ranges were between 0.24–3.19, 0.57–6.43 and 0.81–12.95, respectively. Since IQM is essentially a double wedge-shaped large ionisation chamber, its reproducibility and detection capability are competitive to that of MatriXX. In addition, the sensitivity of the two QA systems increases with an increase in escalation percentage, and the signal responses are patient plan specific. Conclusions The two detectors response signals have good correlations and they are accurate for pre-treatment QA. Statistically, (P < 0.05) there is a significant difference between the IQM and MatriXX response to dose errors.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(5) : 462-471


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2