Mallory C Glenn1,2, Christine B Peterson2,3, David S Followill1,2, Rebecca M Howell1,2, Julianne M Pollard-Larkin1,2, Stephen F Kry1,2. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS: Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES: Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS: These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS: Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES: Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS: These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.
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: James R Kerns; David S Followill; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Paola Alvarez; Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Ronald J Watts; Anders Ahnesjö; John Gibbons; X Allen Li; Jessica Lowenstein; Raj K Mitra; William E Simon; Timothy C Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: S Timothy Peace Balasingh; I Rabi Raja Singh; K Mohamathu Rafic; S Ebenezer Suman Babu; B Paul Ravindran Journal: J Med Phys Date: 2015 Jul-Sep
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: Mallory C Glenn; Fre'Etta Brooks; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-08-16 Impact factor: 4.071