1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
oa
IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104
1.
1.G. A. Ezzell et al., “AAPM REPORT: Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee,” Med. Phys. 30, 20892115 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1591194
2.
2.I. J. Das, C. Cheng, K. L. Chopra, R. K. Mitra, S. P. Srivastava, and E. Glatstein, “Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: Patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 100, 300307 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn020
3.
3.G. S. Ibbott, D. S. Followill, H. A. Molineu, J. R. Lowenstein, P. E. Alvarez, and J. E. Roll, “Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71, S71S75 (2008).
4.
4.J. Venselaar, H. Welleweerd, and B. Mijnheer, “Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems,” Radiother. Oncol. 60, 191201 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00377-2
5.
5.J. Palta, S. Kim, J. Li, and C. Liu, in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: The State of Art, edited by J. R. Palta and T. R. Mackie (Medical Physics, Madison, WI, 2003), pp. 593612.
6.
6.D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, “A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions,” Med. Phys. 25, 656661 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
7.
7.D. Letourneau, M. Gulam, D. Yan, M. Oldham, and J. W. Wong, “Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance,” Radiother. Oncol. 70, 199206 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2003.10.014
8.
8.S. Pandya and J. Burmeister, “SU-GG-T-127: Effect of fluence smoothing on plan quality and delivery accuracy in intensity modulated radiotherapy,” Med. Phys. 35, 2755 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2961879
9.
9.A. Niroomand-Rad et al., “Radiochromic film dosimetry: Recommendations of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 55,” Med. Phys. 25, 20932115 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598407
10.
10.A. J. Olch, “Evaluation of a computed radiography system for megavoltage photon beam dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 32, 29872999 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2012787
11.
11.MAPCHECK user manual, March 2006, 1175011 Rev H.
12.
12.J. Van Dyk, R. B. Barnett, J. E. Cygler, and P. C. Shragge, “Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 26, 261273 (1993).
13.
13.S. Both et al., “A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 8(2), 18 (2007).
14.
14.A. Molineu et al., “Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the radiation therapy oncology group,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 63, 577583 (2005).
15.
15.B. Fraass et al., “American association of physicists in medicine radiation therapy committee task group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning,” Med. Phys. 25, 17731829 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598373
16.
16.A. Harrison et al., “SU-FF-T-382: Special dosimetric/measurement considerations in commissioning a novel integrated MiniMLC linear accelerator,” Med. Phys. 34, 24892490 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2761107
17.
17.M. Alber et al.., Guidelines for the Verification of IMRT (ESTRO, Brussels, Belgium, 2008).
18.
18.H. Jin, J. Palta, T. S. Suh, and S. Kim, “A generalized a priori dose uncertainty model of IMRT delivery,” Med. Phys. 35, 982996 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2837290
19.
19.H. Jin, H. Chung, C. Liu, J. Palta, T. S. Suh, and S. Kim, “A novel dose uncertainty model and its application for dose verification,” Med. Phys. 32, 17471756 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1924329
20.
20.P. Cadman, R. Bassalow, N. P. Sidhu, G. Ibbott, and A. Nelson, “Dosimetric considerations for validation of a sequential IMRT process with a commercial treatment planning system,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 30013010 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/47/16/314
21.
21.A. Rangel, N. Ploquin, I. Kay, and P. Dunscombe, “Towards an objective evaluation of tolerances for beam modeling in a treatment planning system,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 60116025 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/19/020
22.
22.S. Gillis, C. De Wagter, J. Bohsung, B. Perrin, P. Williams, and B. J. Mijnheer, “An inter-centre quality assurance network for IMRT verification: Results of the ESTRO QUASIMODO project,” Radiother. Oncol. 76, 340353 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.06.021
23.
23.E. E. Klein, J. Hanley, J. Bayouth, F. Yin, W. Simon, S. Dresser, C. Serago, F. Aguirre, L. Ma, B. Arjomandy, C. Liu, C. Sandin, and T. Holmes, “Task Group 142 Report: Quality Assurance of Medical Accelerators,” Med. Phys. 36, 41974212 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104
2009-10-27
2015-07-01

Abstract

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept . Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/1.3238104.html;jsessionid=e1i9o9khodbml.x-aip-live-02?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address

Oops! This section does not exist...

Use the links on this page to find existing content.

752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/11/10.1118/1.3238104
10.1118/1.3238104
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM