Beatrice Steiniger1, René Berger2, Sabine Eilzer3, Christine Kornhuber4, Kathleen Lorenz5, Torsten Peil6, Carsten Reiffenstuhl7, Johannes Schilz8, Dirk Schröder9, Michael Schwedas10, Stephanie Pensold11, Mathias Walke12, Kirsten Weibert10, Ulrich Wolf13, Tilo Wiezorek10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany. beatrice.steiniger@med.uni-jena.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Hospital Gera, Straße des Friedens 122, 07548, Gera, Germany. 3. Radiation therapy Berlin southwest, site Martin-Luther-Hospital, Caspar-Theyß-Straße 33, 14193, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle, Ernst-Grube-Straße 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany. 5. Department for Radiation Oncology, Hospital of Chemnitz, Bürgerstraße 2, 09113, Chemnitz, Germany. 6. MVZ Center for Radiation Oncology Halle GmbH, Niemeyerstraße 24, 06110, Halle (Saale), Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01304, Dresden, Germany. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Helios Hospital Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 74, 99089, Erfurt, Germany. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Central Hospital Suhl, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 2, 98527, Suhl, Germany. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Community Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Friedrichstraße 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This project compares the different patient-related quality assurance systems for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques currently used in the central Germany area with an independent measuring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participating institutions generated 21 treatment plans with different combinations of treatment planning systems (TPS) and linear accelerators (LINAC) for the QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology) patient model. The plans were exposed to the ArcCHECK measuring system (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA). The dose distributions were analyzed using the corresponding software and a point dose measured at the isocenter with an ionization chamber. RESULTS: According to the generally used criteria of a 10 % threshold, 3 % difference, and 3 mm distance, the majority of plans investigated showed a gamma index exceeding 95 %. Only one plan did not fulfill the criteria and three of the plans did not comply with the commonly accepted tolerance level of ±3 % in point dose measurement. CONCLUSION: Using only one of the two examined methods for patient-related quality assurance is not sufficiently significant in all cases.
PURPOSE: This project compares the different patient-related quality assurance systems for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques currently used in the central Germany area with an independent measuring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participating institutions generated 21 treatment plans with different combinations of treatment planning systems (TPS) and linear accelerators (LINAC) for the QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology) patient model. The plans were exposed to the ArcCHECK measuring system (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA). The dose distributions were analyzed using the corresponding software and a point dose measured at the isocenter with an ionization chamber. RESULTS: According to the generally used criteria of a 10 % threshold, 3 % difference, and 3 mm distance, the majority of plans investigated showed a gamma index exceeding 95 %. Only one plan did not fulfill the criteria and three of the plans did not comply with the commonly accepted tolerance level of ±3 % in point dose measurement. CONCLUSION: Using only one of the two examined methods for patient-related quality assurance is not sufficiently significant in all cases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Calibration; Linear accelerators; Organs at risk; Radiation oncology; Radiotherapy, intensity-modulated
Authors: Sofie Gillis; Carlos De Wagter; Joerg Bohsung; Bruce Perrin; Peter Williams; Ben J Mijnheer Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mohammad Hussein; Pejman Rowshanfarzad; Martin A Ebert; Andrew Nisbet; Catharine H Clark Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David S Followill; Marcia Urie; James M Galvin; Kenneth Ulin; Ying Xiao; Thomas J Fitzgerald Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Kiley B Pulliam; David Followill; Laurence Court; Lei Dong; Michael Gillin; Karl Prado; Stephen F Kry Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102