Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2014 · 10 citations · 13 references
MedicineOncologyRadiation OncologyRadiation DosimetryRadiation MeasurementTreatment PlanningDose PrescriptionIntensity-modulated RadiotherapyPatient-specific DosimetryRadiation Dose MeasurementRadiation TherapyRadiation Treatment PlanningDetector Array SystemsDosimetric CalibrationExternal Beam Radiotherapy DosimetryIntensity-modulated Radiation Therapy DosimetryRadiation Dose VerificationRadiotherapy Plan EvaluationTreatment Planning System Dose VerificationTreatment Planning System Validation
Dose verifications for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are generally performed once before treatment. A 39-fraction treatment course for prostate cancer delivers a dose prescription of 78 Gy in eight weeks. Any changes in multileaf collimator leaf position over the treatment course may affect the dosimetry. To evaluate the magnitude of deviations from the predicted dose over an entire treatment course with MLC leaf calibrations performed every two weeks, we tracked weekly changes in relative dose error distributions measured with two-dimensional (2D) beam-by-beam analysis. We compared the dosimetric results from 20 consecutive patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) tests using beam-by-beam analysis and a 2D diode detector array to the dose plans calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). We added back the resulting relative dose error measured weekly into the original dose grid for each beam. To validate the prediction method, the predicted doses and dose distributions were compared to the measurements using an ionization chamber and film. The predicted doses were in good agreement, within 2% of the measured doses, and the predicted dose distributions also presented good agreement with the measured distributions. Dose verification results measured once as a pretreatment QA test were not completely stable, as results of weekly beam-by-beam analysis showed some variation. Because dosimetric errors throughout the treatment course were averaged, the overall dosimetric impact to patients was small.
13
Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa)
Eric Klein, Joseph Hanley, John E. Bayouth et al. · Medical Physics · 2009 · 1.6K citations · Full text
Gary A. Ezzell, James M. Galvin, Daniel A. Low et al. · Medical Physics · 2003 · 877 citations · Full text
Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method
Daniel A. Low, James F. Dempsey · Medical Physics · 2003 · 752 citations