Literature DB >> 8491684

Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers.

J Van Dyk1, R B Barnett, J E Cygler, P C Shragge.   

Abstract

The process of radiation therapy is complex and involves many steps. At each step, comprehensive quality assurance procedures are required to ensure the safe and accurate delivery of a prescribed radiation dose. This report deals with a comprehensive commissioning and ongoing quality assurance program specifically for treatment planning computers. Detailed guidelines are provided under the following topics: (a) computer program and system documentation and user training, (b) sources of uncertainties and suggested tolerances, (c) initial system checks, (d) repeated system checks, (e) quality assurance through manual procedures, and in vivo dosimetry, and (f) some additional considerations including administration and manpower requirements. In the context of commercial computerized treatment planning systems, uncertainty estimates and achievable criteria of acceptability are presented for: (a) external photon beams, (b) electron beams, (c) brachytherapy, and (d) treatment machine setting calculations. Although these criteria of acceptability appear large, they approach the limit achievable with most of today's treatment planning systems. However, developers of new or improved dose calculation algorithms should strive for the goal recommended by the International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements of 2% in relative dose accuracy in low dose gradients or 2 mm spatial accuracy in regions with high dose gradients. For brachytherapy, the aim should be 3% accuracy in dose at distances of 0.5 cm or more at any point for any radiation source. Details are provided for initial commissioning tests and follow-up reproducibility tests. The final quality assurance for each patient is to perform an independent manual check of at least one point in the dose distributions, as well as the machine setting calculation. As a check of the overall treatment planning process, in vivo dosimetry should be performed on a select number of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8491684     DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90206-b

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


  99 in total

1.  Dosimetric verification in inhomogeneous phantom geometries for the XiO radiotherapy treatment planning system with 6-MV photon beams.

Authors:  Ryosuke Kohno; Satoshi Kitou; Eriko Hirano; Satoru Kameoka; Tomonori Goka; Teiji Nishio; Tomoko Miyagishi; Takaki Ariji; Mitsuhiko Kawashima; Takashi Ogino
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-12-25

2.  The effect of slice thickness on target and organs at risk volumes, dosimetric coverage and radiobiological impact in IMRT planning.

Authors:  S P Srivastava; C-W Cheng; I J Das
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Analytic IMRT dose calculations utilizing Monte Carlo to predict MLC fluence modulation.

Authors:  I B Mihaylov; F A Lerma; Y Wu; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Statistic and dosimetric criteria to assess the shift of the prescribed dose for lung radiotherapy plans when integrating point kernel models in medical physics: are we ready?

Authors:  Abdulhamid Chaikh; Jacques Balosso
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12

5.  The change of response of ionization chambers in the penumbra and transmission regions: impact for IMRT verification.

Authors:  D González-Castaño; J Pena; F Sánchez-Doblado; G H Hartmann; F Gómez; A Leal
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-09-08       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  Quasi-IMAT study with conventional equipment to show high plan quality with a single gantry arc.

Authors:  Judith Alvarez Moret; Oliver Kölbl; Ludwig Bogner
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.621

7.  Benchmarking of Monte Carlo simulation of bremsstrahlung from thick targets at radiotherapy energies.

Authors:  Bruce A Faddegon; Makoto Asai; Joseph Perl; Carl Ross; Josep Sempau; Jane Tinslay; Francesc Salvat
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Hounsfield units variations: impact on CT-density based conversion tables and their effects on dose distribution.

Authors:  B Zurl; R Tiefling; P Winkler; P Kindl; K S Kapp
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.621

9.  [Calculation accuracy of volumes for evaluating dose-volume histograms. Comparison of various radiation planning systems].

Authors:  C Fellner; B Sommer; N Siedhoff; R Pötter
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.621

10.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.

Authors:  Benjamin E Nelms; Heming Zhen; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.