MO-F-108-12: Evaluation of the Planar Ion Chamber and the Cylindrical Diode Arrays for Extracranial Cyberknife Patient Specific QA

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (6Part24) ◽  
pp. 409-409
Author(s):  
M Lin ◽  
I Veltchev ◽  
J Li ◽  
R Price ◽  
J Fan ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-578
Author(s):  
Satoshi Nakamura ◽  
Hiroyuki Okamoto ◽  
Akihisa Wakita ◽  
Rei Umezawa ◽  
Kana Takahashi ◽  
...  

Abstract There are many reports concerning patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, reports about the statistical results of QA are lacking. Management methods for the results of the QA are needed, even though we have the ESTRO group recommendation that a tolerance limit of 1.96 standard deviation (SD) be established in each institution. The purpose of this study was to establish a management method for determining the tolerance limit and to report the statistical results of patient-specific QA. From April 2006 to March 2015, five linacs in the National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, were used to treat 1185 patients with IMRT. Patient-specific QA was performed using an ion chamber, films, and some detectors. To establish a management method for the results, differences between the measured and calculated doses in the ion chamber were analyzed for each linac, each phantom, and each treatment site. The overall mean dose difference was 0.5 ± 1.3%, and the mean dose difference in each linac was 0.6 ± 1.2%, 0.9 ± 1.3%, −0.4 ± 1.4%, −0.1 ± 1.2% and −0.1 ± 0.9%. The difference between linacs and between treatment sites was significant (P < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). The proportion of the dose difference within ±3% was 97.7%, and that was improved from 2006 to 2014. The results of the patient-specific QA should be managed for each linac and each treatment site in order to decide the suitable tolerance limit. Reports of statistical results will be helped if a new tolerance limit and action level will be considered.


2014 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. S171
Author(s):  
S. Adamczyk ◽  
A. Skrobala ◽  
M. Adamczyk ◽  
B. Pawalowski

2012 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. S522-S523
Author(s):  
F. Clemente Gutierrez ◽  
C. Perez Vara ◽  
M. Prieto Villacorta ◽  
M. Martin de Miguel ◽  
P. Samper Ots ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. S743
Author(s):  
Y. Miao ◽  
G. Kidane ◽  
A. Ifthaker ◽  
L. Crees ◽  
E. Almond

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 639-642
Author(s):  
Tobias Teichmann ◽  
Henning Salz ◽  
Michael Schwedas ◽  
Simon Howitz ◽  
Tilo Wiezorek

AbstractIn phase I of the survey a planning intercomparison of patient-related QA was performed at 12 institutions. The participating clinics created phantom based IMRT and VMAT plans which were measured utilizing the ArcCheck diode array. Mobius3D (M3D) was used in phase II. It acts as a secondary dose verification tool for patient-specific QA based on average linac beam data collected by Mobius Medical Systems. All Quasimodo linac plans will be analyzed for the continuation of the intercomparison. We aim to determine if Mobius3D is suited for use with diverse treatment techniques, if beam model customization is needed. Initially we computed first Mobius3D results by transferring all plans from phase I to our Mobius3D server. Because of some larger PTV mean dose differences we checked if output factor customization would be beneficial. We performed measurements and output factor correction to account for discrepancies in reference conditions. Compared to Mobius3D's preconfigured average beam data values, these corrected output factors differed by ±1.5% for field sizes between 7x7cm2 and 30x30cm2 and to −3.9% for 3x3cm2. Our method of correcting the output factors turns out good congruence to M3D's reference values for these medium field sizes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document