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.
IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons,
a report from AAPM Task Group 119
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, 2089–2115 (2003).
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, 300–307 (2008).
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, S71–S75 (2008).
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. 593–612.
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, 656–661 (1998).
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).
9.A. Niroomand-Rad et al., “Radiochromic film dosimetry: Recommendations of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 55,” Med. Phys. 25, 2093–2115 (1998).
11.MAPCHECK user manual, March 2006, 1175011 Rev H.
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, 261–273 (1993).
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), 1–8 (2007).
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, 577–583 (2005).
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, 1773–1829 (1998).
16.A. Harrison et al., “SU-FF-T-382: Special dosimetric/measurement considerations in commissioning a novel integrated MiniMLC linear accelerator,” Med. Phys. 34, 2489–2490 (2007).
17.M. Alber et al.., Guidelines for the Verification of IMRT (ESTRO, Brussels, Belgium, 2008).
18.H. Jin, J. Palta, T. S. Suh, and S. Kim, “A generalized a priori dose uncertainty model of IMRT delivery,” Med. Phys. 35, 982–996 (2008).
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, 1747–1756 (2005).
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, 3001–3010 (2002).
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, 6011–6025 (2007).
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, 340–353 (2005).
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, 4197–4212 (2009).
Article metrics loading...
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,
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
determined using ion
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
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.
Full text loading...
Most read this month