Limits...
Dose-volume histogram quality assurance for linac-based treatment planning systems.

Gossman MS, Bank MI - J Med Phys (2010)

Bottom Line: In this article we present the first quality assurance routine involving a direct comparison of planning system results with the results obtained from independent hand calculations.The average accuracy was within 0.6% for 6 MV and 0.4% for 18 MV for all depth-dose results.A 2% disagreement was observed with the treatment planning system DVH from defined volume comparison to the known structure dimensions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Medical Physics Section, 706, 23 Street, Ashland, Kentucky, USA.

ABSTRACT
Dose-volume histograms provide key information to radiation oncologists when they assess the adequacy of a patient treatment plan in radiation therapy. It is important therefore that all clinically relevant data be accurate. In this article we present the first quality assurance routine involving a direct comparison of planning system results with the results obtained from independent hand calculations. Given a known three-dimensional (3-D) structure such as a parallelepiped, a simple beam arrangement, and known physics beam data, a time-efficient and reproducible method for verifying the accuracy of volumetric statistics (DVH) from a radiation therapy treatment planning system (TPS) can be employed rapidly, satisfying the QA requirements for (TPS) commissioning, upgrades, and annual checks. Using this method, the maximum disagreement was only 1.7% for 6 MV and 1.3% for 18 MV photon energies. The average accuracy was within 0.6% for 6 MV and 0.4% for 18 MV for all depth-dose results. A 2% disagreement was observed with the treatment planning system DVH from defined volume comparison to the known structure dimensions.

No MeSH data available.


Dose-volume histogram statistical analysis from the treatment planning system for 6 MV (dashed) and 18 MV (solid)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2990113&req=5

Figure 0003: Dose-volume histogram statistical analysis from the treatment planning system for 6 MV (dashed) and 18 MV (solid)

Mentions: The percentage of volume encompassing the dose at each depth as well as the stated renormalized percentage depth-dose at each volumetric depth was calculated and directly compared to the results from the planning system DVH plots. Both X-ray energy modalities were reviewed independently and identically in the planning system. The treatment planning system DVH statistics for 6 MV and 18 MV are presented in Figure 3. A sample of the resulting calculation routine screen is presented in Table 1.


Dose-volume histogram quality assurance for linac-based treatment planning systems.

Gossman MS, Bank MI - J Med Phys (2010)

Dose-volume histogram statistical analysis from the treatment planning system for 6 MV (dashed) and 18 MV (solid)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2990113&req=5

Figure 0003: Dose-volume histogram statistical analysis from the treatment planning system for 6 MV (dashed) and 18 MV (solid)
Mentions: The percentage of volume encompassing the dose at each depth as well as the stated renormalized percentage depth-dose at each volumetric depth was calculated and directly compared to the results from the planning system DVH plots. Both X-ray energy modalities were reviewed independently and identically in the planning system. The treatment planning system DVH statistics for 6 MV and 18 MV are presented in Figure 3. A sample of the resulting calculation routine screen is presented in Table 1.

Bottom Line: In this article we present the first quality assurance routine involving a direct comparison of planning system results with the results obtained from independent hand calculations.The average accuracy was within 0.6% for 6 MV and 0.4% for 18 MV for all depth-dose results.A 2% disagreement was observed with the treatment planning system DVH from defined volume comparison to the known structure dimensions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Tri-State Regional Cancer Center, Medical Physics Section, 706, 23 Street, Ashland, Kentucky, USA.

ABSTRACT
Dose-volume histograms provide key information to radiation oncologists when they assess the adequacy of a patient treatment plan in radiation therapy. It is important therefore that all clinically relevant data be accurate. In this article we present the first quality assurance routine involving a direct comparison of planning system results with the results obtained from independent hand calculations. Given a known three-dimensional (3-D) structure such as a parallelepiped, a simple beam arrangement, and known physics beam data, a time-efficient and reproducible method for verifying the accuracy of volumetric statistics (DVH) from a radiation therapy treatment planning system (TPS) can be employed rapidly, satisfying the QA requirements for (TPS) commissioning, upgrades, and annual checks. Using this method, the maximum disagreement was only 1.7% for 6 MV and 1.3% for 18 MV photon energies. The average accuracy was within 0.6% for 6 MV and 0.4% for 18 MV for all depth-dose results. A 2% disagreement was observed with the treatment planning system DVH from defined volume comparison to the known structure dimensions.

No MeSH data available.