SU-E-P-05: Is Routine Treatment Planning System Quality Assurance Necessary?

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part4) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
P Alaei
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
System Quality ◽  
Routine Treatment

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Dose Distribution of Photon Beam Planning by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA)

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
M Jahangir Alam ◽  
Syed Md Akram Hussain ◽  
Kamila Afroj ◽  
Shyam Kishore Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Maximum Dose ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

A three dimensional treatment planning system has been installed in the Oncology Center, Bangladesh. This system is based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The aim of this study is to verify the validity of photon dose distribution which is calculated by this treatment planning system by comparing it with measured photon beam data in real water phantom. To do this verification, a quality assurance program, consisting of six tests, was performed. In this program, both the calculated output factors and dose at different conditions were compared with the measurement. As a result of that comparison, we found that the calculated output factor was in excellent agreement with the measured factors. Doses at depths beyond the depth of maximum dose calculated on-axis or off-axis in both the fields or penumbra region were found in good agreement with the measured dose under all conditions of energy, SSD and field size, for open and wedged fields. In the build up region, calculated and measured doses only agree (with a difference 2.0%) for field sizes > 5 × 5 cm2 up to 25 × 25 cm2. For smaller fields, the difference was higher than 2.0% because of the difficulty in dosimetry in that region. Dose calculation using treatment planning system based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is accurate enough for clinical use except when calculating dose at depths above maximum dose for small field size.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14686 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.4 No.1 2011 43-49

Quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy head and neck cancer treatment using PRESAGE® dosimeter

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalil ur Rehman ◽  
Muhammad Isa ◽  
Nisar Ahmad ◽  
H. M. Noor ul Huda Khan Asghar ◽  
Zaheer A. Gilani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Calculated Dose

AbstractBackgroundAccurate three-dimensional dosimetry is essential in modern radiotherapy techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this research work, the PRESAGE® dosimeter was used as quality assurance (QA) tool for VMAT planning for head and neck (H&N) cancer.Material and methodComputer tomography (CT) scans of an Image Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) H&N anthropomorphic phantom with both IROC standard insert and PRESAGE® insert were acquired separately. Both CT scans were imported into the Pinnacle (9.4 version) TPS for treatment planning, where the structures [planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk) and thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) were manually contoured and used to optimise a VMAT plan. Treatment planning was done using VMAT (dual arc: 182°–178°, 178°–182°). Beam profile comparisons and gamma analysis were used to quantify agreement with film, PRESAGE® measurement and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distribution.ResultsThe average ratio of TLD measured to calculated doses at the four PTV locations in the H&N phantom were between 0·95 to 0·99 for all three VMAT deliveries. Dose profiles were taken along the left–right, the anterior–posterior and superior–inferior axes, and good agreement was found between the PRESAGE® and Pinnacle profile. The mean value of gamma results for three VMAT deliveries in axial and sagittal planes were found to be 94·24 and 93·16% when compared with film and Pinnacle, respectively. The average values comparing the PRESAGE® results and dose values calculated on Pinnacle were observed to be 95·29 and 94·38% in the said planes, respectively, using a 5%/3 mm gamma criteria.ConclusionThe PRESAGE® dose measurements and calculated dose of pinnacle show reasonable agreement in both axial and sagittal planes for complex dual arc VMAT treatment plans. In general, the PRESAGE® dosimeter is found to be a feasible QA tool of VMAT plan for H&N cancer treatment.

A user-oriented procedure for the commissioning and quality assurance testing of treatment planning system dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy

Brachytherapy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Peppa ◽  
Evaggelos Pantelis ◽  
Eleftherios Pappas ◽  
Vasileios Lahanas ◽  
Constantinos Loukas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
High Dose ◽  
High Dose Rate Brachytherapy

scholarly journals Evaluation of Delta4DVH Anatomy in 3D Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 153303382094581
Author(s):  
Du Tang ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Xunzhang Dai ◽  
Ying Cao
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pencil Beam ◽  
Ion Chamber ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Gamma Passing Rate

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. Materials and Methods: Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated. Results: For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta4 geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients’ quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% ± 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta4 geometry was 99.6% ± 0.89%, 98.54% ± 1.60%, and 98.95% ± 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% ± 1.23% and 93.04% ± 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients’ geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta4 and patients’ geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients’ geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3°. Conclusions: The new Delta4DVH Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.

Quality assurance for a treatment planning system in scanned ion beam therapy

2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1588-1600 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Jäkel ◽  
G. H. Hartmann ◽  
C. P. Karger ◽  
P. Heeg ◽  
J. Rassow
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Ion Beam ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Ion Beam Therapy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document