Cargando…

A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy

An effective patient quality assurance (QA) program for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) requires accurate and realistic plan acceptance criteria—that is, action limits. Based on dose measurements performed with a commercially available two‐dimensional (2D) diode array, we analyzed 747 f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Both, Stefan, Alecu, Ionut M., Stan, Andrada R., Alecu, Marius, Ciura, Andrei, Hansen, Jeremy M., Alecu, Rodica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2374
_version_ 1783285007272378368
author Both, Stefan
Alecu, Ionut M.
Stan, Andrada R.
Alecu, Marius
Ciura, Andrei
Hansen, Jeremy M.
Alecu, Rodica
author_facet Both, Stefan
Alecu, Ionut M.
Stan, Andrada R.
Alecu, Marius
Ciura, Andrei
Hansen, Jeremy M.
Alecu, Rodica
author_sort Both, Stefan
collection PubMed
description An effective patient quality assurance (QA) program for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) requires accurate and realistic plan acceptance criteria—that is, action limits. Based on dose measurements performed with a commercially available two‐dimensional (2D) diode array, we analyzed 747 fluence maps resulting from a routine patient QA program for IMRT plans. The fluence maps were calculated by three different commercially available (ADAC, CMS, Eclipse) treatment planning systems (TPSs) and were delivered using 6‐MV X‐ray beams produced by linear accelerators. To establish reasonably achievable and clinically acceptable limits for the dose deviations, the agreement between the measured and calculated fluence maps was evaluated in terms of percent dose error (PDE) for a few points and percent of passing points (PPP) for the isodose distribution. The analysis was conducted for each TPS used in the study (365 ADAC, 162 CMS, 220 Eclipse), for multiple treatment sites (prostate, pelvis, head and neck, spine, rectum, anus, lung, brain), at the normalization point for 3% percentage difference (%Diff) and 3‐mm distance to agreement (DTA) criteria. We investigated the treatment‐site dependency of PPP and PDE. The results show that, at 3% and 3‐mm criteria, a 95% PPP and 3% PDE can be achieved for prostate treatments and a 90% PPP and 5% PDE are attainable for any treatment site. PACS Numbers: 87.53Dq, 87.53Tf, 87.53Xd, 87.56Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5722409
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57224092018-04-02 A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy Both, Stefan Alecu, Ionut M. Stan, Andrada R. Alecu, Marius Ciura, Andrei Hansen, Jeremy M. Alecu, Rodica J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics An effective patient quality assurance (QA) program for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) requires accurate and realistic plan acceptance criteria—that is, action limits. Based on dose measurements performed with a commercially available two‐dimensional (2D) diode array, we analyzed 747 fluence maps resulting from a routine patient QA program for IMRT plans. The fluence maps were calculated by three different commercially available (ADAC, CMS, Eclipse) treatment planning systems (TPSs) and were delivered using 6‐MV X‐ray beams produced by linear accelerators. To establish reasonably achievable and clinically acceptable limits for the dose deviations, the agreement between the measured and calculated fluence maps was evaluated in terms of percent dose error (PDE) for a few points and percent of passing points (PPP) for the isodose distribution. The analysis was conducted for each TPS used in the study (365 ADAC, 162 CMS, 220 Eclipse), for multiple treatment sites (prostate, pelvis, head and neck, spine, rectum, anus, lung, brain), at the normalization point for 3% percentage difference (%Diff) and 3‐mm distance to agreement (DTA) criteria. We investigated the treatment‐site dependency of PPP and PDE. The results show that, at 3% and 3‐mm criteria, a 95% PPP and 3% PDE can be achieved for prostate treatments and a 90% PPP and 5% PDE are attainable for any treatment site. PACS Numbers: 87.53Dq, 87.53Tf, 87.53Xd, 87.56Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2007-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5722409/ /pubmed/17592459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2374 Text en © 2007 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 Radiation Oncology Physics
Both, Stefan
Alecu, Ionut M.
Stan, Andrada R.
Alecu, Marius
Ciura, Andrei
Hansen, Jeremy M.
Alecu, Rodica
A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title_full A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title_fullStr A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title_full_unstemmed A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title_short A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
title_sort study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2374
work_keys_str_mv AT bothstefan astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecuionutm astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT stanandradar astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecumarius astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT ciuraandrei astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT hansenjeremym astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecurodica astudytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT bothstefan studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecuionutm studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT stanandradar studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecumarius studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT ciuraandrei studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT hansenjeremym studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy
AT alecurodica studytoestablishreasonableactionlimitsforpatientspecificqualityassuranceinintensitymodulatedradiationtherapy