Determination of the accuracy of different computer planning systems for treatment with external photon beams

Westermann, C.F.; Mijnheer, Ben J.; Kleffens, H.J. van

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(84)80022-5

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quality assurance work performed in this environment naturally concentrated on dose calculation-related issues. [5][6][7][8][9][10]1 Now, however, with the continuing expansion of 3D planning capabilities in many centers, a huge increase in the magnitude and complexity of treatment decisions that are made inside the RTP system has occurred. With full 3D planning, decisions about the area to be treated, importance of normal tissue doses, beam directions and energy, field sizes, beam aperture, and most other aspects of how to treat the patient are usually made during treatment planning by some combination of the treatment planner, physician, and physicist.…”

Section: Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.

show abstract

Section: Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the treatment planning system (TPS), as a component in the radiation therapy process, is a key contributor to the delivery of safe and effective treatments (McCullough and Krueger 1980, Mijnheer et al 1987, International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements 1987, Fraass B et al 1998, Westermann et al 1984. Many studies have been performed to assess available treatment planning systems (Declich et al 1999, Alam et al 1997, Van Esch et al 2006, Ramsey et al 1999, Knoos et al 2006, Casanova Borca et al 2005 as well as to provide guidelines to be followed in the commissioning process (Van Dyk et al 1993, Venselaar et al 2001, Starkschall et al 2000, Bedford et al 2003, Ahnesjo et al 2005, Tome 2002.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an objective evaluation of tolerances for beam modeling in a treatment planning system

Rangel¹,

Ploquin²,

Kay³

et al. 2007

Phys. Med. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of a convolution/superposition based treatment planning system depends on the ability of the dose calculation algorithm to accurately account for physical interactions taking place in the tissue, key components of the linac head and on the accuracy of the photon beam model. Generally the user has little or no control over the performance of the dose calculation algorithm but is responsible for the accuracy of the beam model within the constraints imposed by the system. This study explores the dosimetric impact of limitations in photon beam modeling accuracy on complex 3D clinical treatment plans. A total of 70 photon beam models was created in the Pinnacle treatment planning system. Two of the models served as references for 6 MV and 15 MV beams, while the rest were created by perturbing the reference models in order to produce specific deviations in specific regions of the calculated dose profiles (central axis and transverse). The beam models were then used to generate 3D plans on seven CT data sets each for four different treatment sites (breast and conformal prostate, lung and brain). The equivalent uniform doses (EUD) of the targets and the principal organs at risk (OARs) of all plans ( approximately 1000) were calculated and compared to the EUDs delivered by the reference beam models. In general, accurate dosimetry of the target is most greatly compromised by poor modeling of the central axis depth dose and the horns, while the EUDs of the OARs exhibited the greatest sensitivity to beam width accuracy. Based on the results of this analysis we suggest a set of tolerances to be met during commissioning of the beam models in a treatment planning system that are consistent in terms of clinical outcomes as predicted by the EUD.

show abstract

“…In this test, the relative output factor (S c,p ), as defined by Khan, and Gibbons (2014) [48], were measured for wide range of open square field sizes with dimensions of (4,5,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30 and 32 cm 2 ) at reference depth = 10 cm.…”

Section: Test Case (2) Relative Output Factor (S Cp )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors studied the performance evaluation of the accuracy of the treatment planning system for external photon beams [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Also, many organizations had published quality assurance protocols and reports handling the radiation treatment planning dosimetry verification [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights to Achieve More Accuracy for the Conventional Treatment Planning Systems

2021

Journal of Measurement Science and Applications (JMSA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many documents and protocols had been published in the field of treatment planning systems (TPS) quality assurance, verifying dose calculation to the relevant measurements. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had published Technical Documents (TEC-DOCs) concerned with the TPS quality assurance intended to the developing countries to suits the conventional facilities in their centers. This work aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the TPS that available in our department, following the guidelines of IAEA. Twelve test cases were chosen to verify the TPS dosimetric performance in homogenous water that can be applied by our available dosimetric tools. Two of these test cases related to the absolute dose measurements on the central axis of the open square field sizes (relative output factor (S c,p )) and wedge output factor (WOF) for wedged square field sizes. The other test cases involved relative measurements as percentage depth dose (PDD) curves, beam profiles, off-axis ratio (OAR) dose values, penumbra region, and radiological width (RW) 50 . The results analyzed by the confidence limit concept and the tolerance criteria of acceptability stated by IAEA TEC-DOCs. Results show that TPS calculations are in good agreement with the measurements and within limits except for the parameters (RW) 50 and (WOF) of the tested field sizes that exceeding the tolerance limits. The deviation () in the TPS calculations of (RW) 50 = 2.5 mm, the penumbra regions are 2.6 mm and 2.8 mm for photon beam energies 6 and 10 MV, respectively. The proposed analysis display, determining clearly the orientations of calculation errors. This method elaborates errors and their directions in a good way.

show abstract

Determination of the accuracy of different computer planning systems for treatment with external photon beams

Cited by 28 publications

References 3 publications

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

Towards an objective evaluation of tolerances for beam modeling in a treatment planning system

Insights to Achieve More Accuracy for the Conventional Treatment Planning Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About