PO-1650 Investigating dosimetric accuracy of SRS treatment plans for brain metastases

2021 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. S1369-S1370
Author(s):  
G. Mok ◽  
J.H. Phua ◽  
H.Q. Tan ◽  
K.W. Ang ◽  
S.Y. Park ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 511-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Lechner ◽  
Alexander Primeßnig ◽  
Lena Nenoff ◽  
Paulina Wesolowska ◽  
Joanna Izewska ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katia Pasciuti ◽  
Giuseppe Iaccarino ◽  
Antonella Soriani ◽  
Vicente Bruzzaniti ◽  
Simona Marzi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Michael J. MacFarlane ◽  
Kai Jiang ◽  
Michelle Mundis ◽  
Elizabeth Nichols ◽  
Arun Gopal ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 021723
Author(s):  
G. Wright ◽  
P. Hatfield ◽  
C. Loughrey ◽  
B. Reiner ◽  
P. Bownes

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
V. W. C. Wu ◽  
K. Y. Cheung ◽  
L. Lee ◽  
S. Y. Tung ◽  
J. Leung ◽  
...  

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of three 3-dimensional radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPS) in terms of user-friendliness and dosimetric accuracy.Methods: A scale type questionnaire, which contained 129 items under 13 aspects of the TPS, was used to collect opinions from users from three different institutions with regards to the user-friendliness. The assessment of dosimetric accuracy was carried out by comparing the measured dose values with those calculated by the TPS under 18 different irradiating and phantom set-up conditions.Results: Eleven respondents completed the questionnaires for each TPS. Our study indicated that the Varian CadPlan was outstanding in the plotting and network transfer of treatment plans to other workstations, the CMS Focus performed better in the construction of treatment aids, and the ADAC Pinnacle in the outlining, modification of field parameters, control of graphics and normalization of dose. In terms of dosimetric accuracy, the measured and the calculated data for the 3 TPSs showed fairly good agreement. Except for the field with median block, in which the Focus presented with the best result, the differences in other irradiating conditions were not obvious with the percentage dose deviations within ±3%.Conclusion: In conclusion, for the 3 TPSs evaluated, each had its own strengths and weaknesses, and no TPS was superior in all test conditions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153303382110119
Author(s):  
Lingtong Hou ◽  
Huiqin Zhang ◽  
Xiaomei Sun ◽  
Qianqian Liu ◽  
Tingfeng Chen ◽  
...  

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of the default couch model of the QFix kVueTM Calypso couch top in the treatment planning system. Methods: With the gantry 180°, field size 20 × 20 cm, 6 MV, we measured the depth dose, off-axis dose, and dose plane of different depths in the phantom with the couch rails in and out, respectively. Isocenter doses at different angles were also obtained. The results were compared to the doses calculated using the default couch top model and the real scanned couch top model. Then we revised the default model according to the measured results. Results: With “Rails In,” the depth dose, off-axis dose, and dose plane of the default couch top model had a big difference with the dose of the real scanned couch top model and the measured result. The dose of the real scanned couch top model was much closer to the measured result, but in the region of the rail edge, the difference was still significant. With “Rails Out,” there was a minor difference between the measured result, the dose of the default couch top model and the real scanned couch top model. The difference between the measurement and the default couch top model became very small after being revised. Conclusions: It is better to avoid the beam angle passing through the couch rails in treatment plans, or you should revise the parameter of the QFix kVueTM Calypso couch top model based on the measured results, and verify the treatment plan before clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document