Application of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapy

被引:29
|
作者
Alam, R
Ibbott, GS
Pourang, R
Nath, R
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Therapeut Radiol, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
[2] Univ Kentucky, Dept Radiat Med, AB Chandler Med Ctr, Lexington, KY 40536 USA
[3] Yale New Haven Hosp, Dept Therapeut Radiol, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
关键词
radiation treatment planning; photon dose calculations; radiation therapy dose calculations; quality assurance;
D O I
10.1118/1.598119
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Task Group 23 of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee has produced a test package for verification of the accuracy of treatment planning for photon external beam therapy. The package includes measured fundamental beam data for 4 and 18 MV x rays, and 13 test cases with measured dose values at selected points, which serve as the reference for determination of calculated dose accuracy. Test cases include three square fields, two rectangular fields, a wedged held, a blocked field, and an irregular field, as well as cases of an off-center plane, source-to-surface distance (SSD) variation, oblique incidence, and lung and bone inhomogeneities. This package was used to evaluate two treatment planning systems. Although average dose variations in most cases were less than 1%, maximum deviations up to 19% were observed in one planning system and up to 11% in the other. Dose deviations greater than 3% were observed for 51 of 532 points (in the 4 MV case) and for 124 of 586 points (in the 18 MV case). An additional component of the test package is an evaluation of radiological field width at different depths. The largest deviation for width was 17.4 mm for 4 MV and 9.1 mm for is MV. In 20% of the widths studied, the deviation observed was greater than 3 mm for the 4 MV case. In the 18 MV case 18% of the widths had deviations greater than 3 mm. Our data indicate that the accuracy of the two treatment planning systems tested here warrants improvement, even for simple treatment geometries involving photon beams, which are generally considered to be well understood. As one of the treatment planning systems is widely used in the US, it is concluded that the accuracy of the currently available commercial treatment planning systems is not adequate for achieving the generally stated goal of +/- 5% accuracy of dose delivery in radiation therapy. The AAPM Task Group 23 test package provides an extremely useful tool for a quantitative analysis of treatment planning systems for photon beam radiation therapy. (C) 1997 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:2043 / 2054
页数:12
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [21] Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the photon dose calculation performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical setting
    Venselaar, J
    Welleweerd, H
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2001, 60 (02) : 203 - 213
  • [22] Comparison of post treatment biopsies in patients treated with photon vs neutron plus photon external beam radiation therapy.
    Schneider, C
    Grignon, D
    Sakr, W
    LIttrup, P
    Forman, J
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 1998, 11 (01) : 95A - 95A
  • [23] Task Group 158: Measurement and Calculation of Doses Outside the Treatment Volume From External-Beam Radiation Therapy Treatment
    Howell, R.
    Kry, S.
    Bednarz, B.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3747 - 3748
  • [24] Dosimetric accuracy of two commercially available Monte Carlo treatment planning systems in photon beam therapy
    Kunzler, T.
    Stock, M.
    Fotina, I.
    Georg, D.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S224 - S224
  • [25] A comparison of treatment planning techniques used in two randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trials for localised prostate cancer
    South, C. P.
    Khoo, V. S.
    Naismith, O.
    Norman, A.
    Dearnaley, D. P.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 20 (01) : 15 - 21
  • [26] Dosimetric verification of two commercially available three-dimensional treatment planning systems using the TG 23 test package
    Ramsey, CR
    Cordrey, IL
    Spencer, KM
    Oliver, AL
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1999, 26 (07) : 1188 - 1195
  • [27] A treatment planning comparison of photon stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and proton beam therapy for the re-irradiation of pelvic cancer recurrence
    Chuter, R.
    Glassborow, E.
    Speight, R.
    Clarke, M.
    Murray, L.
    Radhakrishna, G.
    Lavin, V
    Aspin, L.
    Aldred, M.
    Gregory, S.
    Richardson, J.
    Handley, J.
    PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2022, 21 : 78 - 83
  • [28] Conventional, conformal, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning of external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer:: The impact of tumor regression
    van de Bunt, L
    van der Heide, UA
    Ketelaars, M
    de Kort, GAP
    Jürgenliemk-Schulz, IM
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2006, 64 (01): : 189 - 196
  • [29] Comparison of Automated Treatment Planning Based on External Beam Radiation Therapy with High Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Focal Intraprostatic Boost Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
    Kehayias, C. E.
    Mahal, A. R.
    Bredfeldt, J. S.
    King, M. T.
    Guthier, C. V.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2024, 120 (02): : E144 - E145
  • [30] Comparison of Rapid Arc and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in a True Beam Linear Accelerator for 6 MV: Application of AAPM TG-119 tests in treatment planning and quality assurance
    Roy, Soumya
    Sarkar, Biplab
    Pradhan, Anirudh
    PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 7 (04): : 256 - 267