scholarly journals A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient-specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Both ◽  
Ionut M. Alecu ◽  
Andrada R. Stan ◽  
Marius Alecu ◽  
Andrei Ciura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated

scholarly journals A comparison of the quality assurance of four dosimetric tools for intensity modulated radiation therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaeman Son ◽  
Taesung Baek ◽  
Boram Lee ◽  
Dongho Shin ◽  
Sung Yong Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Passing Rates ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Patient Specific Qa

Abstract Background. This study was designed to compare the quality assurance (QA) results of four dosimetric tools used for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to suggest universal criteria for the passing rate in QA, irrespective of the dosimetric tool used. Materials and methods. Thirty fields of IMRT plans from five patients were selected, followed by irradiation onto radiochromic film, a diode array (Mapcheck), an ion chamber array (MatriXX) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for patient-specific QA. The measured doses from the four dosimetric tools were compared with the dose calculated by the treatment planning system. The passing rates of the four dosimetric tools were calculated using the gamma index method, using as criteria a dose difference of 3% and a distance-to-agreement of 3 mm. Results. The QA results based on Mapcheck, MatriXX and EPID showed good agreement, with average passing rates of 99.61%, 99.04% and 99.29%, respectively. However, the average passing rate based on film measurement was significantly lower, 95.88%. The average uncertainty (1 standard deviation) of passing rates for 6 intensity modulated fields was around 0.31 for film measurement, larger than those of the other three dosimetric tools. Conclusions. QA results and consistencies depend on the choice of dosimetric tool. Universal passing rates should depend on the normalization or inter-comparisons of dosimetric tools if more than one dosimetric tool is used for patient specific QA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document