Usually, pencil beam kernels for photon beam calculations are obtained by Monte Carlo calculations. In this paper, we present a method to derive a pencil beam kernel from measured beam data, i.e. central axis depth doses, phantom scatter factors and off-axis ratios. These data are usually available in a radiotherapy planning system. The differences from other similar works are: (a) the central part of the pencil beam is derived from the measured penumbra of large fields and (b) the dependence of the primary photon fluence on the depth caused by beam hardening in the phantom is taken into account. The calculated pencil beam will evidently be influenced by the methods and instruments used for measurement of the basic data set. This is of particular importance for an accurate prediction of the absorbed dose delivered by small fields. Comparisons with measurements show that the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions fits well in a 2% error interval in the open part of the field, and in a 2 mm isodose shift in the penumbra region.

Background and purpose: Local implementation of plan-specific quality assurance (QA) methods for intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans may vary because of dissimilarities in procedures, equipment and software. The purpose of this work is detecting possible differences between local QA findings and those of an audit, using the same set of treatment plans. Methods: A pre-defined set of clinical plans was devised and imported in the participating institute's treatment planning system for dose computation. The dose distribution was measured using an ionisation chamber, radiochromic film and an ionisation chamber array. The centres performed their own QA, which was compared to the audit findings. The agreement/disagreement between the audit and the institute QA results were assessed along with the differences between the dose distributions measured by the audit team and computed by the institute. Results: For the majority of the cases the results of the audit were in agreement with the institute QA findings: ionisation chamber: 92%, array: 88%, film: 76% of the total measurements. In only a few of these cases the evaluated measurements failed for both: ionisation chamber: 2%, array: 4%, film: 0% of the total measurements. Conclusion: Using predefined treatment plans, we found that in approximately 80% of the evaluated measurements the results of local QA of IMRT and VMAT plans were in line with the findings of the audit. However, the percentage of agreement/disagreement depended on the characteristics of the measurement equipment used and on the analysis metric.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract