Prog Med Phys.  2013 Dec;24(4):213-219. 10.14316/pmp.2013.24.4.213.

Review on the Pre-treatment Quality Assurance for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. youngyih@skku.edu

Abstract

This review paper deals with the current statues of pre-treatment quality assurance conducted for Intensity modulated radiation therapy. Focusing on the issues relevant to two-dimensional verification of absorbed dose distribution, review was made for the papers published during the last 3~4 years. Lastly, the future development direction was projected.

Keyword

Intensity modulated radiation therapy; Pre-treatment quality assurance; Two-dimensional dose distribution; Gamma index

Figure

  • Fig. 1. Example of the gamma index and parameter selection of the gamma index, (a) histogram of the gamma map wit 5%/3 mm criteria (b) DTA/DD criteria satisfying P (DTA, DD) 90%.20)

  • Fig. 2. Dose shifting and c index passing rate. (a) A 2-cm strip curve shifted 1 mm and (b) a 2-cm strip shifted 2 mm.20)


Cited by  1 articles

Assessment for the Utility of Treatment Plan QA System according to Dosimetric Leaf Gap in Multileaf Collimator
Soon Sung Lee, Sang Hyoun Choi, Chul Kee Min, Woo Chul Kim, Young Hoon Ji, Seungwoo Park, Haijo Jung, Mi-Sook Kim, Hyung Jun Yoo, Kum Bae Kim
Prog Med Phys. 2015;26(3):168-177.    doi: 10.14316/pmp.2015.26.3.168.


Reference

1. Brahme A. Optimization of stationary and moving beam radiation therapy techniques. Radiother Oncol. 12(2):129–140. 1988.
Article
2. Das IJ, Cheng C, Chopra KL, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription, recording, and delivery: Patterns of variability among institutions and treatment planning systems. J Natl Cancer Inst. 100(5):300–307. 2008.
Article
3. Ulmer W, Pyyry J, Kaissl W. A 3D photon superposition/convolution algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 50(8):1767–1790. 2005.
Article
4. Gifford KA, Horton JL Jr, Wareing TA, Failla G, Mourtada F. Comparison of a finite-element multigroup discrete- ordinates code with Monte Carlo for radiotherapy calculations. Phys Med Biol. 51(9):2253; (2006).
5. Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, McGhee J, Failla G, Salehpour MR, Mourtada F. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 55(3):581–598. 2010.
Article
6. Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. Med Phys. 30(8):2089–2115. 2003.
Article
7. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 36(11):5359–5373. 2009.
Article
8. Low DA, Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 30(9):2455–2464. 2003.
Article
9. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 25(5):656–661. 1998.
Article
10. Both S, Alecu IM, Stan AR, et al. A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient-specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 8(2):1–8. 2007.
Article
11. Kim JI, Chung JB, Park YK, et al. A multi-institutional study for tolerance and action levels of IMRT dose quality assurance measurements in Korea. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 14(2):3964. 2013.
Article
12. Yan G, Fox C, Liu C, Li JG. The extraction of true profiles for TPS commissioning and its impact on IMRT patient-specific QA. Med Phys. 35(8):3661–3670. 2008.
Article
13. Li JS, Lin T, Chen L, Price RA, Ma CM. Uncertainties in IMRT dosimetry. Med Phys. 37:2491; (2010).
Article
14. Ju SG, Han Y, Kum O, et al. Comparison of film dosimetry techniques used for quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys. 37(6):2925–2933. 2010.
Article
15. Margalit DN, Chen YH, Catalano PJ, et al. Technological advancements and error rates in radiation therapy delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 81(4):e673–679. 2011.
Article
16. Nelms BE, Simon JA. A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 8(3):2448; (2007).
Article
17. Kruse JJ. On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies. Med Phys. 37(6):2516–2524. 2010.
Article
18. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 38(2):1037–1044. 2011.
Article
19. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, Sapino V, Gabriele P. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 39(12):7626–7634. 2012.
Article
20. Li H, Dong L, Zhang L, Yang JN, Gillin MT, Zhu XR. Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance method. Med Phys. 38(12):6730–6741. 2011.
21. Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys. 38(10):5477–5489. 2011.
Article
22. Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, Mijnheer B, van Herk M, Mans A. Automatic in vivo portal dosimetry of all treatments. Phys Med Biol. 58(22):8253–8264. 2013.
Full Text Links
  • PMP
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr