Cargando…

Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems

The process for validating dose‐volume histogram data in brachytherapy software is presented as a supplement to a previously published article. Included is the DVH accuracy evaluation of the Best NOMOS treatment planning system called “Best TPS VohvmePlan” As done previously in other software, a rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gossman, Michael S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6105
_version_ 1783279692071043072
author Gossman, Michael S.
author_facet Gossman, Michael S.
author_sort Gossman, Michael S.
collection PubMed
description The process for validating dose‐volume histogram data in brachytherapy software is presented as a supplement to a previously published article. Included is the DVH accuracy evaluation of the Best NOMOS treatment planning system called “Best TPS VohvmePlan” As done previously in other software, a rectangular cuboid was contoured in the treatment planning system. A single radioactive (125)I source was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Calculations were performed to estimate dose deposition in partial volumes of the cuboid structure, using the brachytherapy dosimetry formalism defined in AAPM Task Group 43. Hand‐calculated, dose‐volume results were compared to TPS‐generated, point‐source‐approximated dose‐volume histogram data to establish acceptance. The required QA for commissioning was satisfied for the DVH as conducted previously for other software, using the criterion that the DVH [Formula: see text] “actual variance” calculations should differ by no more than 5% at any specific radial distance with respect to [Formula: see text] , and the “average variance” DVH [Formula: see text] calculations should differ by no more than 2% over all radial distances with respect to [Formula: see text]. The average disagreement observed between hand calculations and treatment planning system DVH was less than 0.5% on average for this treatment planning system and less than 1.1% maximally for [Formula: see text]. PACS number(s): 87.10.+e, 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Jw, 07.05.Tp
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690912
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56909122018-04-02 Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems Gossman, Michael S. J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Notes The process for validating dose‐volume histogram data in brachytherapy software is presented as a supplement to a previously published article. Included is the DVH accuracy evaluation of the Best NOMOS treatment planning system called “Best TPS VohvmePlan” As done previously in other software, a rectangular cuboid was contoured in the treatment planning system. A single radioactive (125)I source was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Calculations were performed to estimate dose deposition in partial volumes of the cuboid structure, using the brachytherapy dosimetry formalism defined in AAPM Task Group 43. Hand‐calculated, dose‐volume results were compared to TPS‐generated, point‐source‐approximated dose‐volume histogram data to establish acceptance. The required QA for commissioning was satisfied for the DVH as conducted previously for other software, using the criterion that the DVH [Formula: see text] “actual variance” calculations should differ by no more than 5% at any specific radial distance with respect to [Formula: see text] , and the “average variance” DVH [Formula: see text] calculations should differ by no more than 2% over all radial distances with respect to [Formula: see text]. The average disagreement observed between hand calculations and treatment planning system DVH was less than 0.5% on average for this treatment planning system and less than 1.1% maximally for [Formula: see text]. PACS number(s): 87.10.+e, 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Jw, 07.05.Tp John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690912/ /pubmed/27167288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6105 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Notes
Gossman, Michael S.
Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title_full Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title_fullStr Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title_full_unstemmed Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title_short Addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
title_sort addendum to brachytherapy dose‐volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems
topic Technical Notes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6105
work_keys_str_mv AT gossmanmichaels addendumtobrachytherapydosevolumehistogramcommissioningwithmultipleplanningsystems