NCS Report 15: Quality assurance of 3-D treatment planning systems
for external photon and electron beams

Bruinvis, I.A.D.; Keus, Ronald B.; Lenglet, W.J.M.; Meijer, G.; Mijnheer, B.J.; Veld, Aart A. van ‘t; Venselaar, J.L.M.; Welleweerd, J.; Woudstra, Evert

doi:10.25030/ncs-015

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several recommendations for quality assurance of TPS have been published by various national and international organizations. (1,6,(9)(10)(11) In 2004, European Society for Therapeutic Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) published Booklet No. 7 (6) as a more practical recommendation for commissioning of TPS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐ and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems

Akino

Gibbons

Neck

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate beam data acquisition during commissioning is essential for modeling the treatment planning system and dose calculation in radiotherapy. Although currently several commercial scanning systems are available, there is no report that compared the differences among the systems because most institutions do not acquire several scanning systems due to the high cost, storage space, and infrequent usage. In this report, we demonstrate the intra‐ and intervariability of beam profiles measured with four commercial scanning systems. During a recent educational and training workshop, four different vendors of beam scanning water phantoms were invited to demonstrate the operation and data collection of their systems. Systems were set up utilizing vendor‐recommended protocols and were operated with a senior physicist, who was assigned as an instructor along with vendor. During the training sessions, each group was asked to measure beam parameters, and the intravariability in percent depth dose (PDD). At the end of the day, the profile of one linear accelerator was measured with each system to evaluate intervariability. Relatively very small (SD < 0.12%) intervariability in PDD was observed among four systems at a region deeper than peak (1.5 cm). All systems showed almost identical profiles. At the area within 80% of radiation field, the average, and maximum differences were within ± 0.35% and 0.80%, respectively, compared to arbitrarily chosen IBA system as reference. In the penumbrae region, the distance to agreement (DTA) of the region where dose difference exceed ± 1% was less than 1 mm. Repeated PDD measurement showed small intravariability with SD < 0.5%, although large SD was observed in the buildup region. All four water phantom scanning systems demonstrated adequate accuracy for beam data collection (i.e., within 1% of dose difference or 1 mm of DTA among each other). It is concluded that every system is capable of acquiring accurate beam. Thus the selection of a water scanning system should be based on institutional comfort, personal preference of software and hardware, and financial consideration.PACS number: 87.53.Bn

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐ and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems

Akino

Gibbons

Neck

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monitoring the agreement between the TPS and the verification system during clinical use can aid in identifying regions where beam models or data may be improved, but such monitoring is not a substitute for the commissioning of either system. Both the TPS and the verification system should be fully tested and commissioned following accepted guidelines 5,14,15 prior to clinical use. A key result from commissioning tests is the establishment of the expected accuracy of the primary TPS and MUV system in clinically relevant situations.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Verification Calculationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification of monitor unit calculations for non‐IMRT clinical radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 114

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The requirement of an independent verification of the monitor units ͑MU͒ or time calculated to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance. The need for and value of such a verification was obvious when calculations were performed by hand using look-up tables, and the verification was achieved by a second person independently repeating the calculation. However, in a modern clinic using CT/MR/PET simulation, computerized 3D treatment planning, heterogeneity corrections, and complex calculation algorithms such as convolution/superposition and Monte Carlo, the purpose of and methodology for the MU verification have come into question. In addition, since the verification is often performed using a simpler geometrical model and calculation algorithm than the primary calculation, exact or almost exact agreement between the two can no longer be expected. Guidelines are needed to help the physicist set clinically reasonable action levels for agreement. This report addresses the following charges of the task group: ͑1͒ To re-evaluate the purpose and methods of the "independent second check" for monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT radiation treatment in light of the complexities of modernday treatment planning. ͑2͒ To present recommendations on how to perform verification of monitor unit calculations in a modern clinic. ͑3͒ To provide recommendations on establishing action levels for agreement between primary calculations and verification, and to provide guidance in addressing discrepancies outside the action levels. These recommendations are to be used as guidelines only and shall not be interpreted as requirements.

show abstract

“…NCS15 [27]. The tests described in that report remain valid for a stereotactic treatment planning system.…”

Section: General Remarksmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The tests described in that report remain valid for a stereotactic treatment planning system. Tolerances of 2 mm and 2% are often quoted [27,51,130], except for field sizes below 1x1 cm² where 5-6% dose differences are tolerated. Most recommendations of NCS15 remain valuable for the stereotactic treatment planning system, but the distance to agreement for individual beams is reduced to 1 mm or better [51,126].…”

Section: General Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

NCS Report 25: Process management and quality assurance for intracranial stereotactic treatment

Heukelom¹,

Hoffmans-Holtzer²,

Marijnissen³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The NCS frequently publishes reports for fellow professionals in which recommendations are given for various quality control procedures or otherwise. The members of the NCS board and the members of the concerning subcommittee do not claim any authority exceeding that of their professional expertise. Responsibility on how the NCS recommendations are implemented lies with the user, taking into account the practice in his/her institution.

show abstract

NCS Report 15: Quality assurance of 3-D treatment planning systems for external photon and electron beams

Cited by 16 publications

References 12 publications

Intra‐ and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems

Intra‐ and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems

Verification of monitor unit calculations for non‐IMRT clinical radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 114

NCS Report 25: Process management and quality assurance for intracranial stereotactic treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About