Literature DB >> 23387762

Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.

Andrea Molineu1, Nadia Hernandez, Trang Nguyen, Geoffrey Ibbott, David Followill.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was performed to report and analyze the results of the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) phantom irradiations done by institutions seeking to be credentialed for participation in clinical trials using intensity modulated radiation therapy.
METHODS: The Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom was sent to institutions seeking to participate in multi-institutional clinical trials. The phantom contained two planning target volume (PTV) structures and an organ at risk (OAR). Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film dosimeters were imbedded in the PTV. Institutions were asked to image, plan, and treat the phantom as they would treat a patient. The treatment plan should cover at least 95% of the primary PTV with 6.6 Gy and at least 95% of the secondary PTV with 5.4 Gy. The plan should limit the dose to the OAR to less than 4.5 Gy. The passing criteria were ±7% for the TLD in the PTVs and a distance to agreement of 4 mm in the high dose gradient area between the PTV and the OAR. Pass rates for different delivery types, treatment planning systems (TPS), linear accelerators, and linear accelerator-planning system combinations were compared.
RESULTS: The phantom was irradiated 1139 times by 763 institutions from 2001 through 2011. 929 (81.6%) of the irradiations passed the criteria. 156 (13.7%) irradiations failed only the TLD criteria, 21 (1.8%) failed only the film criteria, and 33 (2.9%) failed both sets of criteria. Only 69% of the irradiations passed a narrowed TLD criterion of ±5%. Varian-Elipse and TomoTherapy-HiArt combinations had the highest pass rates, ranging from 90% to 93%. Varian-Pinnacle(3), Varian-XiO, Siemens-Pinnacle(3), and Elekta-Pinnacle(3) combinations had pass rates that ranged from 66% to 81%.
CONCLUSIONS: The head and neck phantom is a useful credentialing tool for multi-institutional IMRT clinical trials. The most commonly represented linear accelerator-planning system combinations can all pass the phantom, though some combinations had higher passing percentages than others. Tightening the criteria would significantly reduce the number of institutions passing the credentialing criteria. Causes for failures include incorrect data entered into the TPS, inexact beam modeling, and software and hardware failures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23387762      PMCID: PMC3555917          DOI: 10.1118/1.4773309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  13 in total

1.  Dosimetric considerations for validation of a sequential IMRT process with a commercial treatment planning system.

Authors:  P Cadman; R Bassalow; N P S Sidhu; G Ibbott; A Nelson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2002-08-21       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters.

Authors:  T H Kirby; W F Hanson; D A Johnston
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1992 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Credentialing of institutions for IMRT in clinical trials.

Authors:  Jatinder R Palta; James A Deye; Geoffrey S Ibbott; James A Purdy; Marcia M Urie
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Authors:  Andrea Molineu; David S Followill; Peter A Balter; William F Hanson; Michael T Gillin; M Saiful Huq; Avraham Eisbruch; Geoffrey S Ibbott
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Radiochromic film dosimetry: recommendations of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 55. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Authors:  A Niroomand-Rad; C R Blackwell; B M Coursey; K P Gall; J M Galvin; W L McLaughlin; A S Meigooni; R Nath; J E Rodgers; C G Soares
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.

Authors:  Gary A Ezzell; Jay W Burmeister; Nesrin Dogan; Thomas J LoSasso; James G Mechalakos; Dimitris Mihailidis; Andrea Molineu; Jatinder R Palta; Chester R Ramsey; Bill J Salter; Jie Shi; Ping Xia; Ning J Yue; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

Authors:  D A Low; W B Harms; S Mutic; J A Purdy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Mailable TLD system for photon and electron therapy beams.

Authors:  T H Kirby; W F Hanson; R J Gastorf; C H Chu; R J Shalek
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.

Authors:  G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems.

Authors:  Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Kashmiri L Chopra; Raj K Mitra; Shiv P Srivastava; Eli Glatstein
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  47 in total

1.  Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.

Authors:  Mallory E Carson; Andrea Molineu; Paige A Taylor; David S Followill; Francesco C Stingo; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Treatment plan complexity does not predict IROC Houston anthropomorphic head and neck phantom performance.

Authors:  Mallory C Glenn; Victor Hernandez; Jordi Saez; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Shouhao Zhou; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  On the feasibility of comprehensive high-resolution 3D remote dosimetry.

Authors:  Titania Juang; Ryan Grant; John Adamovics; Geoffrey Ibbott; Mark Oldham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo dose calculation platform and its application toward validating an MRI-guided radiation therapy beam model.

Authors:  Yuhe Wang; Thomas R Mazur; Olga Green; Yanle Hu; Hua Li; Vivian Rodriguez; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Tianyu Zhao; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer.

Authors:  Tomas Kron; Brent Chesson; Nicholas Hardcastle; Melissa Crain; Natalie Clements; Mark Burns; David Ball
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Evaluation of the Differences Between Measurements in Multiple Institutions and Calculation Modeled by Representative Beam Data in Prostate VMAT Plan.

Authors:  Hironao Goto; Hirokazu Mizuno; Yuichi Akino; Masaru Isono; Yoshihiro Tanaka; Norihisa Masai; Toshijiro Yamamoto; Masahiko Koizumi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

7.  Results From the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston's Anthropomorphic Phantoms Used for Proton Therapy Clinical Trial Credentialing.

Authors:  Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry; Paola Alvarez; Tyler Keith; Carrie Lujano; Nadia Hernandez; David S Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.

Authors:  Sharbacha S Edward; Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Peter A Balter; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Andrea Molineu; James R Kerns; Austin M Faught; Jessie Y Huang; Kiley B Pulliam; Jackie Tonigan; Paola Alvarez; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures.

Authors:  James R Kerns; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Adam Melancon; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.