Literature DB >> 12504059

Current calibration, treatment, and treatment planning techniques among institutions participating in the Children's Oncology Group.

Marcia Urie1, T J FitzGerald, David Followill, Fran Laurie, Robert Marcus, Jeff Michalski.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report current technology implementation, radiation therapy physics and treatment planning practices, and results of treatment planning exercises among 261 institutions belonging to the Children's Oncology Group (COG). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Radiation Therapy Committee of the newly formed COG mandated that each institution demonstrate basic physics and treatment planning abilities by satisfactorily completing a questionnaire and four treatment planning exercises designed by the Quality Assurance Review Center. The planning cases are (1) a maxillary sinus target volume (for two-dimensional planning), (2) a Hodgkin's disease mantle field (for irregular-field and off-axis dose calculations), (3) a central axis blocked case, and (4) a craniospinal irradiation case. The questionnaire and treatment plans were submitted (as of 1/30/02) by 243 institutions and completed satisfactorily by 233. Data from this questionnaire and analyses of the treatment plans with monitor unit calculations are presented.
RESULTS: Of the 243 clinics responding, 54% use multileaf collimators routinely, 94% use asymmetric jaws routinely, and 13% use dynamic wedges. Nearly all institutions calibrate their linear accelerators following American Association of Physicists in Medicine protocols, currently 16% with TG-51 and 81% with TG-21 protocol. Treatment planning systems are relied on very heavily for all calculations, including monitor units. Techniques and results of each of the treatment planning exercises are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: Together, these data provide a unique compilation of current (2001) radiation therapy practices in institutions treating pediatric patients. Overall, the COG facilities have the equipment and the personnel to perform high-quality radiation therapy. With ongoing quality assurance review, radiation therapy compliance with COG protocols should be high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12504059     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03827-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  5 in total

1.  Processes for quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  T J FitzGerald; Marcia Urie; Kenneth Ulin; Fran Laurie; Jeffrey Yorty; Richard Hanusik; Sandy Kessel; Maryann Bishop Jodoin; Gani Osagie; M Giulia Cicchetti; Richard Pieters; Kathleen McCarten; Nancy Rosen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 2.  What we have learned: the impact of quality from a clinical trials perspective.

Authors:  Thomas J FitzGerald
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 5.934

3.  Craniospinal irradiation with spinal IMRT to improve target homogeneity.

Authors:  Atmaram Pai Panandiker; Holly Ning; Anna Likhacheva; Karen Ullman; Barbara Arora; John Ondos; Shervin Karimpour; Roger Packer; Robert Miller; Deborah Citrin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-04-30       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Found in translation: Integrating laboratory and clinical oncology research.

Authors:  H Wagner
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2008-07-01

5.  Impact of time-related factors on biologically accurate radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Yushi Wakisaka; Masashi Yagi; Iori Sumida; Masaaki Takashina; Kazuhiko Ogawa; Masahiko Koizumi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.481

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.