James R Kerns1, Francesco Stingo2, David S Followill1, Rebecca M Howell3, Adam Melancon4, Stephen F Kry5. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: sfkry@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a "considerable" institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique. RESULTS: Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.
PURPOSE: The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a "considerable" institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique. RESULTS: Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors. CONCLUSIONS:Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.
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
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
Authors: James R Kerns; David S Followill; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Paola Alvarez; Paige A Taylor; Francesco C Stingo; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: David S Followill; DeeAnn Radford Evans; Christopher Cherry; Andrea Molineu; Gary Fisher; William F Hanson; Geoffrey S Ibbott Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jennifer B Smilowitz; Indra J Das; Vladimir Feygelman; Benedick A Fraass; Stephen F Kry; Ingrid R Marshall; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Zoubir Ouhib; Timothy Ritter; Michael G Snyder; Lynne Fairobent Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Christopher L Nelson; Bryan E Mason; Ronald C Robinson; Kelly D Kisling; Steven M Kirsner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102
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
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
Authors: Kelsey L Corrigan; Stephen Kry; Rebecca M Howell; Ramez Kouzy; Joseph Abi Jaoude; Roshal R Patel; Anuja Jhingran; Cullen Taniguchi; Albert C Koong; Mary Fran McAleer; Paige Nitsch; Claus Rödel; Emmanouil Fokas; Bruce D Minsky; Prajnan Das; C David Fuller; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Lainy Dromgoole; Paola Alvarez; Jessica Leif; Andrea Molineu; Paige Taylor; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nels C Knutson; Matthew C Schmidt; Matthew D Belley; Ngoc Nguyen; Michael Price; Sasa Mutic; Erno Sajo; H Harold Li Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Brandon Koger; Ryan Price; Da Wang; Dolla Toomeh; Sarah Geneser; Eric Ford Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 2.102