Assessment of computerized treatment planning system accuracy in calculating wedge factors of physical wedged fields for 6 MV photon beams

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wazir Muhammad ◽  
Muhammad Maqbool ◽  
Muhammad Shahid ◽  
Amjad Hussain ◽  
Sajjad Tahir ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 214-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Maqbool ◽  
Wazir Muhammad ◽  
Muhammad Shahid ◽  
Misbah Ahmad ◽  
Matiullah Matiullah

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
You Zhang ◽  
Anh H. Le ◽  
Zhen Tian ◽  
Zohaib Iqbal ◽  
Tsuicheng Chiu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
DaZhen Jiang ◽  
Dajiang Wang ◽  
Jiuling Shen ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Cheng Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate accuracy of the United Imaging Healthcare's uRT treatment planning system (uRT-TPS), by creating AAPM TG 119 test plans with respectively IMRT and VMAT techniques by homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom. Materials and MethodsThe plans were delivered to the homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom using the United Imaging Healthcare's uRT-Linac 506C. The overall dose calculation accuracy by uRT-TPS with Collapsed Cone Convolution (CC) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm was measured and analyzed by creating IMRT and VMAT plans for the 5 test geometries specified in TG 119, by using two kinds of beams FF photon beam and FFF photon beam. The point doses were measured with a Farmer type ion chamber and the fluences were measured with films respectively. Results The result of position accuracy was shown that the worst position accuracy is 0.36 mm and the repeated positioning accuracy of MLC field location was less than 0.25mm. The symmetry deviation of MLC was less than 0.08mm. In this study, the CLs of sMLC, dMLC and VMAT plans with FF photon beams were 2.74%, 2.12%, and 1.36% respectively. As for FFF photon beams, they were 3.76%, 2.14% and 2.90% respectively, whereas the counterpart CL specified in TG119 were 4.5% for the high dose regions and 4.7% for OAR regions. The CLs of Gamma Passing rates for sMLC, dMLC and VMAT plans were 4.59%, 5.35% and 2.15% for FF beam mode, and were 1.82%, 6.12% and 4.82% for FFF beam mode. For the heterogeneous phantom, the maximum deviation is 2.35% for CC and 2.63% for MC algorithm respectively.Conclusion Based on this analysis which were performed in accordance with the TG 119 recommendations, it is evident that the URT treatment planning system and URT-Linac 506C have commissioned IMRT and VMAT techniques with adequate accuracy. and all uRT_TPS treatment plans were recognized as clinically acceptable.


2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1107) ◽  
pp. 20190304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Nystrom ◽  
Maria Fuglsang Jensen ◽  
Petra Witt Nystrom

Treatment planning is the process where the prescription of the radiation oncologist is translated into a deliverable treatment. With the complexity of contemporary radiotherapy, treatment planning cannot be performed without a computerized treatment planning system. Proton therapy (PT) enables highly conformal treatment plans with a minimum of dose to tissues outside the target volume, but to obtain the most optimal plan for the treatment, there are a multitude of parameters that need to be addressed. In this review areas of ongoing improvements and research in the field of PT treatment planning are identified and discussed. The main focus is on issues of immediate clinical and practical relevance to the PT community highlighting the needs for the near future but also in a longer perspective. We anticipate that the manual tasks performed by treatment planners in the future will involve a high degree of computational thinking, as many issues can be solved much better by e.g. scripting. More accurate and faster dose calculation algorithms are needed, automation for contouring and planning is required and practical tools to handle the variable biological efficiency in PT is urgently demanded just to mention a few of the expected improvements over the coming 10 years.


1990 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 445-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Weaver ◽  
Vernon Smith ◽  
James D. Lewis ◽  
Bruce Lulu ◽  
Colleen M. Barnett ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document