WE‐D‐224A‐09: Proposed Pass/fail Criteria for IMRT Patient Specific QA

C. Yang, F. Guo, C. wu, T. Liu, Julian R Perks, Robin L Stern, J. Purdy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To establish an acceptable quality assurance (QA) criteria for IMRT patient specific QA. There are no established criteria regarding agreement between patient's planned dose distributions versus QA measurements. Method and Materials: A series of MLC QA test patterns were run to detect/correct MLC leaf positional inaccuracies for a Varian 2100C and Elekta Synergy (both with 80 leaf MLC). MapCheck, a 2D diode array system, was used to determine optimal correctional parameter, Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG), used in the Varian Eclipse/Helios treatment planning system (TPS) (accounts for effect of MLC rounded‐leaf end geometry). Patient's IMRT plan was checked by resetting all fields to a fixed gantry angle (beam down), delivering summed dose of each beam, measuring with MapCheck, then comparing with TPS calculated dose distribution. QA results for a total of 48 segmented MLC (SMLC) IMRT cases (37 prostate, 9 head and neck, 1 pelvis, and 1 brain) were reviewed. Results: MLC position uncertainties were reduced from 0.3–0.4 mm to 0.1–0.2 mm by a careful calibration. An optimal DLG of 2 mm was determined for Elekta Synergy. Using criteria of ±3% dose agreement or ±3mm distance to agreement (DTA), measured absolute dose distributions agreed with planned dose distributions as follows: prostate: mean 98%, 2.3% S.D.; H&N: mean 89.1%, 8.4% S.D.; pelvis: mean 90.5%; brain: mean 91.1%; for the total 48 cases, mean 96%, S.D. 5.4%. Conclusion: MLC positional accuracy and having optimal correctional parameter within the TPS are two key factors to ensure IMRT delivered dose in good agreement with calculated dose distribution. Using MapCheck as described, we have implemented the following pass/fail criteria for patient specific QA measurement results: 85% of points within ±3% and ±3 mm DTA in absolute dose. Our clinical experience shows that this is achievable even with the most complicated H&N cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2248-2249
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Pelvis
Prostate
Brain
Calibration
Uncertainty
Neck
Therapeutics
Head

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

WE‐D‐224A‐09 : Proposed Pass/fail Criteria for IMRT Patient Specific QA. / Yang, C.; Guo, F.; wu, C.; Liu, T.; Perks, Julian R; Stern, Robin L; Purdy, J.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, p. 2248-2249.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yang, C. ; Guo, F. ; wu, C. ; Liu, T. ; Perks, Julian R ; Stern, Robin L ; Purdy, J. / WE‐D‐224A‐09 : Proposed Pass/fail Criteria for IMRT Patient Specific QA. In: Medical Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 33, No. 6. pp. 2248-2249.
@article{4bdd903f95c4414493146d05f891a13e,
title = "WE‐D‐224A‐09: Proposed Pass/fail Criteria for IMRT Patient Specific QA",
abstract = "Purpose: To establish an acceptable quality assurance (QA) criteria for IMRT patient specific QA. There are no established criteria regarding agreement between patient's planned dose distributions versus QA measurements. Method and Materials: A series of MLC QA test patterns were run to detect/correct MLC leaf positional inaccuracies for a Varian 2100C and Elekta Synergy (both with 80 leaf MLC). MapCheck, a 2D diode array system, was used to determine optimal correctional parameter, Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG), used in the Varian Eclipse/Helios treatment planning system (TPS) (accounts for effect of MLC rounded‐leaf end geometry). Patient's IMRT plan was checked by resetting all fields to a fixed gantry angle (beam down), delivering summed dose of each beam, measuring with MapCheck, then comparing with TPS calculated dose distribution. QA results for a total of 48 segmented MLC (SMLC) IMRT cases (37 prostate, 9 head and neck, 1 pelvis, and 1 brain) were reviewed. Results: MLC position uncertainties were reduced from 0.3–0.4 mm to 0.1–0.2 mm by a careful calibration. An optimal DLG of 2 mm was determined for Elekta Synergy. Using criteria of ±3{\%} dose agreement or ±3mm distance to agreement (DTA), measured absolute dose distributions agreed with planned dose distributions as follows: prostate: mean 98{\%}, 2.3{\%} S.D.; H&N: mean 89.1{\%}, 8.4{\%} S.D.; pelvis: mean 90.5{\%}; brain: mean 91.1{\%}; for the total 48 cases, mean 96{\%}, S.D. 5.4{\%}. Conclusion: MLC positional accuracy and having optimal correctional parameter within the TPS are two key factors to ensure IMRT delivered dose in good agreement with calculated dose distribution. Using MapCheck as described, we have implemented the following pass/fail criteria for patient specific QA measurement results: 85{\%} of points within ±3{\%} and ±3 mm DTA in absolute dose. Our clinical experience shows that this is achievable even with the most complicated H&N cases.",
author = "C. Yang and F. Guo and C. wu and T. Liu and Perks, {Julian R} and Stern, {Robin L} and J. Purdy",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1118/1.2241779",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "2248--2249",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - WE‐D‐224A‐09

T2 - Proposed Pass/fail Criteria for IMRT Patient Specific QA

AU - Yang, C.

AU - Guo, F.

AU - wu, C.

AU - Liu, T.

AU - Perks, Julian R

AU - Stern, Robin L

AU - Purdy, J.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Purpose: To establish an acceptable quality assurance (QA) criteria for IMRT patient specific QA. There are no established criteria regarding agreement between patient's planned dose distributions versus QA measurements. Method and Materials: A series of MLC QA test patterns were run to detect/correct MLC leaf positional inaccuracies for a Varian 2100C and Elekta Synergy (both with 80 leaf MLC). MapCheck, a 2D diode array system, was used to determine optimal correctional parameter, Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG), used in the Varian Eclipse/Helios treatment planning system (TPS) (accounts for effect of MLC rounded‐leaf end geometry). Patient's IMRT plan was checked by resetting all fields to a fixed gantry angle (beam down), delivering summed dose of each beam, measuring with MapCheck, then comparing with TPS calculated dose distribution. QA results for a total of 48 segmented MLC (SMLC) IMRT cases (37 prostate, 9 head and neck, 1 pelvis, and 1 brain) were reviewed. Results: MLC position uncertainties were reduced from 0.3–0.4 mm to 0.1–0.2 mm by a careful calibration. An optimal DLG of 2 mm was determined for Elekta Synergy. Using criteria of ±3% dose agreement or ±3mm distance to agreement (DTA), measured absolute dose distributions agreed with planned dose distributions as follows: prostate: mean 98%, 2.3% S.D.; H&N: mean 89.1%, 8.4% S.D.; pelvis: mean 90.5%; brain: mean 91.1%; for the total 48 cases, mean 96%, S.D. 5.4%. Conclusion: MLC positional accuracy and having optimal correctional parameter within the TPS are two key factors to ensure IMRT delivered dose in good agreement with calculated dose distribution. Using MapCheck as described, we have implemented the following pass/fail criteria for patient specific QA measurement results: 85% of points within ±3% and ±3 mm DTA in absolute dose. Our clinical experience shows that this is achievable even with the most complicated H&N cases.

AB - Purpose: To establish an acceptable quality assurance (QA) criteria for IMRT patient specific QA. There are no established criteria regarding agreement between patient's planned dose distributions versus QA measurements. Method and Materials: A series of MLC QA test patterns were run to detect/correct MLC leaf positional inaccuracies for a Varian 2100C and Elekta Synergy (both with 80 leaf MLC). MapCheck, a 2D diode array system, was used to determine optimal correctional parameter, Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG), used in the Varian Eclipse/Helios treatment planning system (TPS) (accounts for effect of MLC rounded‐leaf end geometry). Patient's IMRT plan was checked by resetting all fields to a fixed gantry angle (beam down), delivering summed dose of each beam, measuring with MapCheck, then comparing with TPS calculated dose distribution. QA results for a total of 48 segmented MLC (SMLC) IMRT cases (37 prostate, 9 head and neck, 1 pelvis, and 1 brain) were reviewed. Results: MLC position uncertainties were reduced from 0.3–0.4 mm to 0.1–0.2 mm by a careful calibration. An optimal DLG of 2 mm was determined for Elekta Synergy. Using criteria of ±3% dose agreement or ±3mm distance to agreement (DTA), measured absolute dose distributions agreed with planned dose distributions as follows: prostate: mean 98%, 2.3% S.D.; H&N: mean 89.1%, 8.4% S.D.; pelvis: mean 90.5%; brain: mean 91.1%; for the total 48 cases, mean 96%, S.D. 5.4%. Conclusion: MLC positional accuracy and having optimal correctional parameter within the TPS are two key factors to ensure IMRT delivered dose in good agreement with calculated dose distribution. Using MapCheck as described, we have implemented the following pass/fail criteria for patient specific QA measurement results: 85% of points within ±3% and ±3 mm DTA in absolute dose. Our clinical experience shows that this is achievable even with the most complicated H&N cases.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48349139600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48349139600&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2241779

DO - 10.1118/1.2241779

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:48349139600

VL - 33

SP - 2248

EP - 2249

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -