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.
Efficient and reliable 3D dose quality assurance for IMRT by combining independent dose calculations with measurements
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4774048
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/2/10.1118/1.4774048
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/2/10.1118/1.4774048

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Overview of the hybrid-QA method. (a) All treatment plans are verified with a model-based QA. Whenever a treatment plan fails to pass clinical acceptance criteria, the physician was consulted whether the dose differences were still clinically acceptable. (b) A random selection of approved treatment plans (approximately 15%) was evaluated with a measurement-based QA to assess the agreement between the model-based QA and measurement-based QA. (c) A standard head and neck IMRT treatment plan was evaluated monthly to verify linac stability for IMRT delivery.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Comparison of COMPASS, Pinnacle, and Monte Carlo calculated depth dose curves (top) and dose profiles (bottom) in a water phantom with a 2.5 cm diameter cylinder of 2.4 g/cm3 density at 10 cm depth (insets).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Comparison of COMPASS, Pinnacle, and Monte Carlo calculated depth dose curves in a lung phantom with densities of 0.25 (lung), 1.00 (tissue), and 1.20 (tumor) g/cm3 (inset). Secondary build-up effects are visible at −12 cm (entrance of “tumor”) and −2 cm (entrance of “mediastinum”).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

GI for 330 treatment plans with 325 PASS classifications (GI ≤ 0.4) and five EVAL classifications (0.4 < GI < 0.6). No treatment plans were classified as FAIL (GI ≥ 0.6).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Model-based QA and measurement-based QA agreed for 41 treatment plans (●) and resulted in different classifications for seven treatment plans (▲). All 48 treatment plans were accepted for treatment.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Average work load per treatment plan in minutes based on four representative head and neck IMRT treatment plans if no problems occur and performed by an experienced user. Measurements for the four treatment plans were completed in one single measurement session.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/2/10.1118/1.4774048
2013-01-18
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Efficient and reliable 3D dose quality assurance for IMRT by combining independent dose calculations with measurements
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/2/10.1118/1.4774048
10.1118/1.4774048
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM