Premium
The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: Short report of the TG‐166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM
Author(s) -
Allen Li X.,
Alber Markus,
Deasy Joseph O.,
Jackson Andrew,
Ken Jee KyungWook,
Marks Lawrence B.,
Martel Mary K.,
Mayo Charles,
Moiseenko Vitali,
Nahum Alan E.,
Niemierko Andrzej,
Semenenko Vladimir A.,
Yorke Ellen D.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.3685447
Subject(s) - quality assurance , medical physics , radiation treatment planning , computer science , plan (archaeology) , variety (cybernetics) , task (project management) , quality (philosophy) , medicine , systems engineering , artificial intelligence , engineering , radiation therapy , surgery , pathology , philosophy , external quality assessment , archaeology , epistemology , history
Treatment planning tools that use biologically related models for plan optimization and/or evaluation are being introduced for clinical use. A variety of dose‐response models and quantities along with a series of organ‐specific model parameters are included in these tools. However, due to various limitations, such as the limitations of models and available model parameters, the incomplete understanding of dose responses, and the inadequate clinical data, the use of biologically based treatment planning system (BBTPS) represents a paradigm shift and can be potentially dangerous. There will be a steep learning curve for most planners. The purpose of this task group is to address some of these relevant issues before the use of BBTPS becomes widely spread. In this report, the authors (1) discuss strategies, limitations, conditions, and cautions for using biologically based models and parameters in clinical treatment planning; (2) demonstrate the practical use of the three most commonly used commercially available BBTPS and potential dosimetric differences between biologically model based and dose‐volume based treatment plan optimization and evaluation; (3) identify the desirable features and future directions in developing BBTPS; and (4) provide general guidelines and methodology for the acceptance testing, commissioning, and routine quality assurance (QA) of BBTPS.