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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |