Evaluation and comparison of second-check monitor unit calculation software with Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 186-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Tuazon ◽  
G. Narayanasamy ◽  
N. Papanikolaou ◽  
N. Kirby ◽  
P. Mavroidis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Calculation Software

SU-E-T-372: Evaluation and Comparison of Second-Check Monitor Unit Calculation Software with Pinnacle Treatment Planning System

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6Part17) ◽  
pp. 3419-3419
Author(s):  
B Tuazon ◽  
G Narayanasamy ◽  
N Kirby ◽  
P Mavroidis ◽  
N Papanikolaou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Calculation Software

1560 poster MONITOR UNIT COMPARISON BETWEEN A TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM AND AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR UNIT CALCULATION SOFTWARE

2011 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. S581
Author(s):  
P. Carreira ◽  
L. Madureira ◽  
M. Mota ◽  
M. Pontes ◽  
T. Ribeiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Calculation Software

Determination of monitor unit check tolerances based on a comparison with measurement and treatment planning system data

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-87
Author(s):  
Helen Curtis ◽  
Neil Richmond ◽  
Kevin Burke ◽  
Chris Walker
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
System Data

scholarly journals Assessment of the Monitor Unit Objective tool for VMAT in the Eclipse treatment planning system

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Jiménez-Puertas ◽  
David Sánchez-Artuñedo ◽  
Marcelino Hermida-López
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Objective Tool

Independent verification of monitor unit calculation for radiation treatment planning system

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Chen ◽  
Li-Xin Chen ◽  
Shao-Min Huang ◽  
Wen-Zhao Sun ◽  
Hong-Qiang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Radiation Treatment Planning ◽  
Independent Verification ◽  
Radiation Treatment Planning System

Comparison of an in-house developed monitor unit double-check program for 3D conformal radiation therapy and treatment planning system verification

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 251-261
Author(s):  
Noureddine Slassi ◽  
Hmad Ouabi ◽  
Naïma El Khayati
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Accurate Determination ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Monitor Unit ◽  
Conformal Radiation Therapy ◽  
Water Phantom ◽  
3D Conformal Radiation Therapy ◽  
System Verification

AbstractAimThe treatment planning system (TPS) plays a key role in radiotherapy treatments; it is responsible for the accurate determination of the monitor unit (MU) needed to be delivered to treat a patient with cancer. The main goal of radiotherapy is to sterilise the tumour; however, any imprecise dose delivered could lead to deadly consequences. The TPS has a quality assurance tool, an independent program to double check the MU, evaluate patient plan correctness and search for any potential error.Materials and methodsIn this work, a comparison was carried out between a MU calculated by TPS and an independent in-house-developed monitor unit calculation program (MUCP). The program, written in Cplusplus (C++ Object-Oriented), requires a database of several measured quantities and uses a recently developed physically based method for field equivalence calculation. The ROOT CERN data analysis library has been used to establish fit functions, to extend MUCP use to a variety of photon beams. This study presents a new approach to checking MU correctness calculated by the TPS for a water-like tissue equivalent medium, using our MUCP, as the majority of previous studies on the MU independent checks were based on the Clarkson method. To evaluate each irradiated region, four calculation points corresponding to relative depths under the water phantom were tested for several symmetric, asymmetric, irregular symmetric and asymmetric field cases. A comparison of MU for each radiation fields from readings of the TPS and the MUCP was undertaken.ResultsA satisfactory agreement has been obtained and within the required standards (3%). Additional experimental measurements of dose deposited in a water phantom showed a deviation of <1·6%.FindingsThe MUCP is a useful tool for basic and complex MU verification for 3D conformal radiation therapy plans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document