Premium
SU‐E‐T‐49: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT
Author(s) -
Baba H,
Kamima T,
Takahashi R,
Kawai D,
Sugawara Y,
Yamamoto T,
Sato A,
Yamashita M,
Tachibana H
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924410
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , imaging phantom , ionization chamber , water equivalent , radiation treatment planning , medicine , significant difference , mathematics , medical physics , radiation therapy , physics , radiology , statistics , ion , quantum mechanics , meteorology , snow , ionization
Purpose: AAPM TG114 does not cover the independent verification for IMRT. We conducted a study of independent dose verification for IMRT in seven institutes to show the feasibility. Methods: 384 IMRT plans in the sites of prostate and head and neck (HN) were collected from the institutes, where the planning was performed using Eclipse and Pinnacle3 with the two techniques of step and shoot (S&S) and sliding window (SW). All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson‐based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. An ion‐chamber measurement in a water‐equivalent slab phantom was performed to compare the doses computed using the TPS and an independent dose verification program. Additionally, the agreement in dose computed in patient CT images between using the TPS and using the SMU was assessed. The dose of the composite beams in the plan was evaluated. Results: The agreement between the measurement and the SMU were −2.3±1.9 % and −5.6±3.6 % for prostate and HN sites, respectively. The agreement between the TPSs and the SMU were −2.1±1.9 % and −3.0±3.7 for prostate and HN sites, respectively. There was a negative systematic difference with similar standard deviation and the difference was larger in the HN site. The S&S technique showed a statistically significant difference between the SW. Because the Clarkson‐based method in the independent program underestimated (cannot consider) the dose under the MLC. Conclusion: The accuracy would be improved when the Clarkson‐based algorithm should be modified for IMRT and the tolerance level would be within 5%.