Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(KleinEEMorrisonAPurdyJAGrahamMVMatthewsJA volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 MV and 18 MV photonsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997371163117010.1016/S0360-3016(97)00110-79169827)
KleinEEMorrisonAPurdyJAGrahamMVMatthewsJA volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 MV and 18 MV photonsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997371163117010.1016/S0360-3016(97)00110-79169827KleinEEMorrisonAPurdyJAGrahamMVMatthewsJA volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 MV and 18 MV photonsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997371163117010.1016/S0360-3016(97)00110-79169827, KleinEEMorrisonAPurdyJAGrahamMVMatthewsJA volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 MV and 18 MV photonsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1997371163117010.1016/S0360-3016(97)00110-79169827
C. Orton, S. Chungbin, E. Klein, M. Gillin, T. Schultheiss, W. Sause (1998)
Study of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88-08). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 41 4
(PettersenMNAirdEOlsenDRQuality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample sizeRadiother Oncol20088619519910.1016/j.radonc.2007.07.00117727987)
PettersenMNAirdEOlsenDRQuality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample sizeRadiother Oncol20088619519910.1016/j.radonc.2007.07.00117727987PettersenMNAirdEOlsenDRQuality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample sizeRadiother Oncol20088619519910.1016/j.radonc.2007.07.00117727987, PettersenMNAirdEOlsenDRQuality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample sizeRadiother Oncol20088619519910.1016/j.radonc.2007.07.00117727987
(AlamRIbbottGSPourangRNathRApplication of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapyMed Phys1997242043205410.1118/1.5981199434989)
AlamRIbbottGSPourangRNathRApplication of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapyMed Phys1997242043205410.1118/1.5981199434989AlamRIbbottGSPourangRNathRApplication of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapyMed Phys1997242043205410.1118/1.5981199434989, AlamRIbbottGSPourangRNathRApplication of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapyMed Phys1997242043205410.1118/1.5981199434989
E. Yorke, L. Harisiadis, B. Wessels, H. Aghdam, R. Altemus (1996)
Dosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lung.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 34 2
(2001)
Lessons learned from accidental exposures in radiotherapy (Safety Reports Series No
(PetrovicBRutonjskiLBaucalMTeodorovicMGershkevitshEVerification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA;2010435436)
PetrovicBRutonjskiLBaucalMTeodorovicMGershkevitshEVerification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA;2010435436PetrovicBRutonjskiLBaucalMTeodorovicMGershkevitshEVerification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA;2010435436, PetrovicBRutonjskiLBaucalMTeodorovicMGershkevitshEVerification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA;2010435436
(YorkeEHarisiadisLWesselsBAghdamHAltemusRDosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lungInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199634248148710.1016/0360-3016(95)02036-58567352)
YorkeEHarisiadisLWesselsBAghdamHAltemusRDosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lungInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199634248148710.1016/0360-3016(95)02036-58567352YorkeEHarisiadisLWesselsBAghdamHAltemusRDosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lungInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199634248148710.1016/0360-3016(95)02036-58567352, YorkeEHarisiadisLWesselsBAghdamHAltemusRDosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lungInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199634248148710.1016/0360-3016(95)02036-58567352
P. Carrasco, N. Jornet, M. Duch, V. Panettieri, L. Weber, T. Eudaldo, M. Ginjaume, M. Ribas (2007)
Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneities.Medical physics, 34 8
Verification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina
B. Fraass, K. Doppke, Margie Hunt, Margie Hunt, G. Kutcher, G. Starkschall, Robin Stern, Jake Dyke (1998)
American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.Medical physics, 25 10
(1998)
Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planningMed Phys, 25
(AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planningMed Phys19982517731829report 5310.1118/1.5983739800687)
AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planningMed Phys19982517731829report 5310.1118/1.5983739800687AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planningMed Phys19982517731829report 5310.1118/1.5983739800687, AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planningMed Phys19982517731829report 5310.1118/1.5983739800687
(KappasCRosenwaldJCQuality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systemsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19953284785810.1016/0360-3016(94)00474-Y7790273)
KappasCRosenwaldJCQuality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systemsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19953284785810.1016/0360-3016(94)00474-Y7790273KappasCRosenwaldJCQuality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systemsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19953284785810.1016/0360-3016(94)00474-Y7790273, KappasCRosenwaldJCQuality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systemsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19953284785810.1016/0360-3016(94)00474-Y7790273
(CarrascoPJornetNDuchMAComparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneitiesMed Phys2007343323333310.1118/1.275097217879796)
CarrascoPJornetNDuchMAComparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneitiesMed Phys2007343323333310.1118/1.275097217879796CarrascoPJornetNDuchMAComparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneitiesMed Phys2007343323333310.1118/1.275097217879796, CarrascoPJornetNDuchMAComparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneitiesMed Phys2007343323333310.1118/1.275097217879796
A. Nisbet, I. Beange, Hans-Stephan Vollmar, C. Irvine, A. Morgan, D. Thwaites (2004)
Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situations.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 73 1
J. Venselaar, H. Welleweerd (2001)
Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the photon dose calculation performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical setting.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 60 2
(2004)
Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)
(IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques2008Vienna: IAEATECDOC 1583)
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques2008Vienna: IAEATECDOC 1583IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques2008Vienna: IAEATECDOC 1583, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques2008Vienna: IAEATECDOC 1583
(NisbetABeangeIVollmarHSIrvineCMorganAThwaitesDIDosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situationsRadiother Oncol200473798810.1016/j.radonc.2004.06.00715465150)
NisbetABeangeIVollmarHSIrvineCMorganAThwaitesDIDosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situationsRadiother Oncol200473798810.1016/j.radonc.2004.06.00715465150NisbetABeangeIVollmarHSIrvineCMorganAThwaitesDIDosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situationsRadiother Oncol200473798810.1016/j.radonc.2004.06.00715465150, NisbetABeangeIVollmarHSIrvineCMorganAThwaitesDIDosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situationsRadiother Oncol200473798810.1016/j.radonc.2004.06.00715465150
James Chu, Ben Ni, Robert Kriz, V. Saxena (2000)
Applications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planning.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 55 1
(1583)
Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques
CG Orton, S Chungbin, EE Klein, MT Gillin, TE Schultheiss, WT Sause (1998)
Study of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 41
(ChengCWDasIJTangWDosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fieldsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19973883584210.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-39240653)
ChengCWDasIJTangWDosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fieldsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19973883584210.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-39240653ChengCWDasIJTangWDosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fieldsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19973883584210.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-39240653, ChengCWDasIJTangWDosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fieldsInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys19973883584210.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-39240653
(OrtonCGChungbinSKleinEEGillinMTSchultheissTESauseWTStudy of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199841478779410.1016/S0360-3016(98)00117-59652839)
OrtonCGChungbinSKleinEEGillinMTSchultheissTESauseWTStudy of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199841478779410.1016/S0360-3016(98)00117-59652839OrtonCGChungbinSKleinEEGillinMTSchultheissTESauseWTStudy of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199841478779410.1016/S0360-3016(98)00117-59652839, OrtonCGChungbinSKleinEEGillinMTSchultheissTESauseWTStudy of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08)Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys199841478779410.1016/S0360-3016(98)00117-59652839
JLM Venselaar, J Welleweerd (2001)
Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical settingRadiother Oncol, 60
M. Pettersen, E. Aird, D. Olsen (2008)
Quality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample size in randomized clinical trials.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 86 2
P. Andreo, D. Burns, K. Hohlfeld, T. Kanai, Fedele Laitano, V. Smyth (2001)
Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water
B. Mijnheer, A. Olszewska, C. Fiorino, G. Hartmann, T. Knöös, J. Rosenwald, H. Welleweerd (2004)
Quality assurance of treatment planning systems - Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams, ESTRO Booklet No. 7Radiotherapy and Oncology, 73
(IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Technical Report Series 430 Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer2005Vienna: IAEA)
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Technical Report Series 430 Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer2005Vienna: IAEAIAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Technical Report Series 430 Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer2005Vienna: IAEA, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Technical Report Series 430 Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer2005Vienna: IAEA
S. Davidson, G. Ibbott, K. Prado, L. Dong, Z. Liao, D. Followill (2007)
Accuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom.Medical physics, 34 5
(AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)2004Madison, WI: Medical Physics PublishingReport 85)
AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)2004Madison, WI: Medical Physics PublishingReport 85AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)2004Madison, WI: Medical Physics PublishingReport 85, AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine)Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)2004Madison, WI: Medical Physics PublishingReport 85
(MijnheerBOlszewskaAFiorinoCQuality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams2005Brussels: ESTROESTRO Booklet no. 7)
MijnheerBOlszewskaAFiorinoCQuality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams2005Brussels: ESTROESTRO Booklet no. 7MijnheerBOlszewskaAFiorinoCQuality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams2005Brussels: ESTROESTRO Booklet no. 7, MijnheerBOlszewskaAFiorinoCQuality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams2005Brussels: ESTROESTRO Booklet no. 7
Xiaorong Zhu, Daniel Low, William Harms, James Purdy (1995)
A convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planning.Medical physics, 22 8
(KnoosTWieslanderECozziLComparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situationsPhys Med Biol2006515785580710.1088/0031-9155/51/22/00517068365)
KnoosTWieslanderECozziLComparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situationsPhys Med Biol2006515785580710.1088/0031-9155/51/22/00517068365KnoosTWieslanderECozziLComparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situationsPhys Med Biol2006515785580710.1088/0031-9155/51/22/00517068365, KnoosTWieslanderECozziLComparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situationsPhys Med Biol2006515785580710.1088/0031-9155/51/22/00517068365
(IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water2000Vienna: IAEATechnical Report Series 398)
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water2000Vienna: IAEATechnical Report Series 398IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water2000Vienna: IAEATechnical Report Series 398, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water2000Vienna: IAEATechnical Report Series 398
(VenselaarJLMWelleweerdJApplication of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical settingRadiother Oncol20016020321310.1016/S0167-8140(01)00304-811439215)
VenselaarJLMWelleweerdJApplication of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical settingRadiother Oncol20016020321310.1016/S0167-8140(01)00304-811439215VenselaarJLMWelleweerdJApplication of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical settingRadiother Oncol20016020321310.1016/S0167-8140(01)00304-811439215, VenselaarJLMWelleweerdJApplication of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical settingRadiother Oncol20016020321310.1016/S0167-8140(01)00304-811439215
H. Schiefer, A. Fogliata, G. Nicolini, L. Cozzi, W. Seelentag, E. Born, F. Hasenbalg, Jakob Roth, B. Schnekenburger, K. Münch-Berndl, V. Vallet, M. Pachoud, B. Reiner, Giovanna Dipasquale, B. Krusche, M. Fix (2010)
The Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantom.Medical physics, 37 8
T. Johnson (2007)
Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of CancerHealth Physics, 92
B Mijnheer, A Olszewska, C Fiorino (2005)
Quality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams
E. Gershkevitsh, R. Schmidt, G. Velez, Daniel Miller, E. Korf, F. Yip, S. Wanwilairat, S. Vatnitsky (2008)
Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: results of IAEA pilot study.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 89 3
(ZhuXRLowDAHarmsWBPurdyJAA convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planningMed Phys1995221315132710.1118/1.5975167476719)
ZhuXRLowDAHarmsWBPurdyJAA convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planningMed Phys1995221315132710.1118/1.5975167476719ZhuXRLowDAHarmsWBPurdyJAA convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planningMed Phys1995221315132710.1118/1.5975167476719, ZhuXRLowDAHarmsWBPurdyJAA convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planningMed Phys1995221315132710.1118/1.5975167476719
C. Cheng, I. Das, W. Tang, S. Chang, J. Tsai, C. Ceberg, B. Gaspie, R. Singh, D. Fein, B. Fowble (1997)
Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 38 4
(DavidsonSEIbbottGSPradoKLDongLLiaoZFollowillDSAccuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantomMed Phys2007341850185710.1118/1.272778917555266)
DavidsonSEIbbottGSPradoKLDongLLiaoZFollowillDSAccuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantomMed Phys2007341850185710.1118/1.272778917555266DavidsonSEIbbottGSPradoKLDongLLiaoZFollowillDSAccuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantomMed Phys2007341850185710.1118/1.272778917555266, DavidsonSEIbbottGSPradoKLDongLLiaoZFollowillDSAccuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantomMed Phys2007341850185710.1118/1.272778917555266
(GershkevitshESchmidtRVelezGMillerDKorfEYipFWanwilairatSVatnitskySDosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot studyRadiother Oncol20088933834610.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.00718701178)
GershkevitshESchmidtRVelezGMillerDKorfEYipFWanwilairatSVatnitskySDosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot studyRadiother Oncol20088933834610.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.00718701178GershkevitshESchmidtRVelezGMillerDKorfEYipFWanwilairatSVatnitskySDosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot studyRadiother Oncol20088933834610.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.00718701178, GershkevitshESchmidtRVelezGMillerDKorfEYipFWanwilairatSVatnitskySDosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot studyRadiother Oncol20088933834610.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.00718701178
(SchieferHFogliataANicoliniGThe Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantomMed Phys20103784424443110.1118/1.346079520879601)
SchieferHFogliataANicoliniGThe Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantomMed Phys20103784424443110.1118/1.346079520879601SchieferHFogliataANicoliniGThe Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantomMed Phys20103784424443110.1118/1.346079520879601, SchieferHFogliataANicoliniGThe Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantomMed Phys20103784424443110.1118/1.346079520879601
Eric Klein, Astrid Morrison, James Purdy, M. Graham, J. Matthews (1997)
A volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 and 18 MV photons.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 37 5
(IAEAInvestigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama2001Vienna: IAEA)
IAEAInvestigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama2001Vienna: IAEAIAEAInvestigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama2001Vienna: IAEA, IAEAInvestigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama2001Vienna: IAEA
R. Alam, G. Ibbott, R. Pourang, R. Nath (1997)
Application of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapy.Medical physics, 24 12
T. Knöös, E. Wieslander, L. Cozzi, C. Brink, A. Fogliata, D. Albers, H. Nyström, S. Lassen (2006)
Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situationsPhysics in Medicine & Biology, 51
(ChuJCHNiBKrizRSaxenaVAApplications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planningRadiother Oncol200055657310788690)
ChuJCHNiBKrizRSaxenaVAApplications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planningRadiother Oncol200055657310788690ChuJCHNiBKrizRSaxenaVAApplications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planningRadiother Oncol200055657310788690, ChuJCHNiBKrizRSaxenaVAApplications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planningRadiother Oncol200055657310788690
(2001)
Investigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama
M. Sharpe (2006)
IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 430: Commissioning And Quality Assurance Of Computerized Planning Systems For Radiation Treatment Of CancerMedical Physics, 33
(IAEALessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety Reports Series No. 172000Vienna: IAEA)
IAEALessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety Reports Series No. 172000Vienna: IAEAIAEALessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety Reports Series No. 172000Vienna: IAEA, IAEALessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety Reports Series No. 172000Vienna: IAEA
C. Kappas, J. Rosenwald (1995)
Quality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systems.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 32 3
(2004)
Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the
B Petrovic, L Rutonjski, M Baucal, M Teodorovic, E Gershkevitsh (2010)
Verification of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA;
MN Pettersen, E Aird, DR Olsen (2008)
Quality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample sizeRadiother Oncol, 86
Background: Independent external audits play an important role in quality assurance programme in radiation oncology. The audit supported by the IAEA in Serbia was designed to review the whole chain of activities in 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) workflow, from patient data acquisition to treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit was based on the IAEA recommendations and focused on dosimetry part of the treatment planning and delivery processes. Methods: The audit was conducted in three radiotherapy departments of Serbia. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with a computed tomography unit (CT) and treatment plans for eight different test cases involving various beam configurations suggested by the IAEA were prepared on local treatment planning systems (TPSs). The phantom was irradiated following the treatment plans for these test cases and doses in specific points were measured with an ionization chamber. The differences between the measured and calculated doses were reported. Results: The measurements were conducted for different photon beam energies and TPS calculation algorithms. The deviation between the measured and calculated values for all test cases made with advanced algorithms were within the agreement criteria, while the larger deviations were observed for simpler algorithms. The number of measurements with results outside the agreement criteria increased with the increase of the beam energy and decreased with TPS calculation algorithm sophistication. Also, a few errors in the basic dosimetry data in TPS were detected and corrected. Conclusions: The audit helped the users to better understand the operational features and limitations of their TPSs and resulted in increased confidence in dose calculation accuracy using TPSs. The audit results indicated the shortcomings of simpler algorithms for the test cases performed and, therefore the transition to more advanced algorithms is highly desirable. Keywords: Treatment planning systems, Quality assurance, Dose calculation algorithms Background dose calculation [5-7]. For the purpose of acceptance Quality Assurance (QA) in radiotherapy treatment plan- testing, commissioning and QA of TPSs, the IAEA has ning process is essential to ensure that the dose calcula- published Technical Reports Series No. 430 [8] that pro- tion is performed correctly and to minimize the vides the general framework and describes a large num- likelihood of accidental exposure [1,2]. Many studies ber of tests and procedures to be considered by the TPS have been performed that lead to the development of users. However, small hospitals with limited resources or guidelines and protocols for QA of 3D radiotherapy large hospitals with high patient load and limited staff TPSs [3,4]. Some studies have been done for solving spe- are not always able to perform all procedures recom- cific problems associated with TPSs performance and mended in this report, therefore the IAEA prepared a set of practical tests for dosimetry calculations in radio- therapy, defined in a dedicated technical document, * Correspondence: lakiruki@gmail.com † TECDOC 1583 [9]. Equal contributors Institute of oncology of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2012 Rutonjski et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 2 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 This document has been used as the basis to conduct were inserted into the holes in the phantom to check the dosimetric audit of TPSs in Serbia. The methodology CT numbers to the RED conversion curve. Recom- of this audit focuses on dosimetry part of the treatment mended arrangement of the reference plugs for the first planning and delivery processes. An anthropomorphic CT scan were: hole 2- muscle reference plug, hole 4 - phantom is used with a set of clinical test cases prepared adipose reference plug, hole 5 - syringe filled with water, by the IAEA, covering a range of typical clinical radi- hole 6 - lung reference plug, hole 7 - should be empty to ation techniques in 3D CRT. The audit methodology represent air and hole 10 - bone reference plug. verifies the chain in external beam radiotherapy work- The second scan was done without reference plugs flow, from patient data acquisition to treatment planning and was used for the planning of clinical test cases as and dose delivery. defined in the TPS audit exercise. During second scan all holes were filled with appropriate rod inserts. The Methods local scanning protocol was used, and the scanning para- The audit was conducted in three out of six radiotherapy meters for both scans were kept the same. The accept- departments in Serbia, i.e. the Institute of Oncology of ance criteria for the difference between the stored and Vojvodina in Sremska Kamenica, the Clinical Centre in measured values of CT numbers for the same RED was Niš and the Institute of Oncology and Radiology of ±20HU [8]. Serbia in Belgrade. Hospitals where audit was not con- ducted either did not have computerized TPS or their Clinical test cases treatment machines were out of working order during A set of clinical test cases was created to verify a range the auditing period. The audit programme required two of basic treatment techniques applied in the clinical days per hospital to be carried out. practice. The beam geometry and sample dose distribu- tion are shown in Figure 1. The detailed description of Phantom test cases is given in the IAEA TECDOC 1583 [9]. The The choice of the phantom for this study was based on measurement points for each case were selected to avoid the following considerations: minimal restricted flexibil- high dose gradients and measurements in the penumbra ity, easy handling and capability to perform all dosimet- region. The total number of measurement points in ric and anatomical test cases. From the comparison of eight test cases was fifteen. The same set of clinical test different phantoms for clinical commissioning of TPSs cases was applied in all three hospitals. The dose calcu- following an IAEA protocol given in TECDOC 1583 [9], lations were performed for each available algorithm it was chosen that the clinical test case measurements based on the grid size normally used in the hospital’s will be conducted on the semi-anthropomorphic phan- clinical practice. tom CIRS Thorax 002 LFC (CIRS Inc., Norfolk, Virginia). The phantom is elliptical in shape (30 cm long Treatment planning systems x 30 cm wide x 20 cm thick) and represents an average Two different calculation algorithms implemented human torso in proportion, density and two-dimensional on three CMS XiO (Elekta CMS Software, St. Louis, structure. The body of the phantom is made of plastic Missouri) versions 4.33, 4.40 and 4.60 TPSs were investi- water, lung and bone sections containing 10 holes to gated. All three hospitals use inhomogeneity corrections hold interchangeable rod inserts for an ionization cham- in clinical practice. The full description of implemented ber. The holes are numbered as shown in Figure 1. The calculation algorithms are beyond the scope of this phantom was supplemented with a set of four reference paper and can be found elsewhere [10-13]. The algo- plugs with well-defined relative electron densities rithms in this study have been divided into two groups: (muscle, bone, lung and adipose equivalent tissue). The phantom was scanned in each hospital using a Type (a) algorithms. Model based algorithms where CT. Dose measurements were performed by placing the changes in lateral electron and photon transport are calibrated ionization chamber into the different holes in not modeled (no lateral transport). Such algorithms use the phantom. The scanning procedure and that for the a pencil beam convolution model and primarily dose measurements are described in the sections below. equivalent path length corrections to account for inhomogeneities. CT calibration Type (b) algorithms. Model based algorithms where The purpose of this test was to verify the Hounsfield changes in lateral electron and photon transport are units (HU) to relative electron density (RED) conversion approximately modeled (with lateral transport). These curve stored in the TPSs. The phantom was scanned algorithms use a point kernel convolution/ twice in each hospital using a CT. For the first scan the superposition model and account for the density reference plugs with different known material properties variation in 3D. Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 3 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 Figure 1 Position of measurement points in CIRS thorax phantom and beam geometry, measurement points and sample dose distribution for eight test cases. Measurements measured in small water cavities within these materials. CT scanners used in the study were Somatom 4 Plus Since these small cavities have not been outlined on CT (Siemens, Erlangen) and Light speed RT (General Elec- slices during dose calculations, the reported doses in these tric Inc., Fairfield, Connecticut). Dose measurements materials have a larger uncertainty than those in plastic were performed in three hospitals using different linear water. The impact of water cavities has been estimated to accelerators with nominal photon energies of 6 and 15 increase the calculated dose by up to 2% for lung equiva- MV from the Varian Clinac 2100 series (Varian Medical lent material and up to 0.3% for bone equivalent material Systems, Palo Alto, California); 6 and 15 MV beams in worst case scenarios. from Siemens Oncor accelerators (Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen) and 6 and 15 MV beams from Analysis of the results Elekta Synergy accelerators (Elekta Oncology Systems, For the evaluation of the measured (D ) and TPS calcu- meas Crawley). The photon beams were divided according to lated (D ) values the criteria specified in IAEA TRS 430 cal the energy into two groups: lower energy X-ray (6 MV) were employed. However, due to the limited number of and higher energy X-ray (15MV) beams. In two institu- available positions for dose measurements in the phantom tions Farmer type chambers FC65-G (IBA Dosimetry, and for better consistency in the interpretation of the Schwarzenbruck, Germany) were used while in one insti- results for the various points the dose differences were tution ionisation chamber NE 2571 (Nuclear Enterprise normalized to the dose measured at the reference point Technology, U.K) was employed. In all measurements for each test case, i.e. the following equation was used: Dose 1 (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) elec- ðÞ D D trometer was used. All chambers and the electrometer calc meas δðÞ % ¼ 100x were calibrated by the national secondary standards dos- meas;ref imetry laboratory. For all measurement points, the absorbed dose to water was determined from ionization where D is the dose value measured at the refer- meas, ref chamber measurements using the IAEA TRS 398 dosim- ence point. This reference point is a point that is expected etry code of practice [14]. When measuring in lung and to have received 2 Gy, and it was specified for each test bone equivalent materials it is assumed that the doses are case. For multiple beam combination the difference Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 4 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 between measured and calculated dose values for selected The largest deviations were observed in the custo- beam should be related to the dose measured at the refer- mised blocking test (test 5) in point 7, which was ence point for the corresponded beam. The agreement cri- located within the lung equivalent material, see Figure 3. teria for each test case were determined according to the The differences up to 9% for lower energy beams and up complexity of the test case geometry. to 15% for higher energy beams were found for the type (a) algorithms. For the type (b) algorithms (Figure 4) the results for both groups of beam energies were within the Results agreement criteria. CT to RED conversion The irregular L-shaped field test (test 6) had three All systems reviewed in this audit had generic or TPS measurement points: one in plastic water (point 3), one in manufacturer supplied CT to RED conversion curves. the lung equivalent material (point 7) and one in the bone Based on the measurements, we concluded that there equivalent material (point 10). Large deviations up to 9% were differences of 6-12% in the region of higher elec- for lower energy beams and up to 12% for higher energy tron densities in two out of three cases (Figure 2). How- beams were observed in point 7 for the algorithms type ever, it was estimated that this difference in relative (a), as can be seen in Figure 3. Type (b) algorithms showed electron density affects dose calculation accuracy less results within the agreement criteria (Figure 4). than 2% [9,15]. In Figure 2 we also presented a zoom at The four-field box test (test 4) had three measurement high density region with TPS data added. points: one at the isocentre in plastic water (point 5), one in the lung equivalent material on the central axis of lat- Clinical test cases eral beams (point 6) and one in the bone equivalent ma- The differences between the measured and calculated terial on the central axis of vertical beams (point 10). doses for the various measurement points and test cases The deviations outside agreement criteria were found for for all three hospitals are presented in Figures 3 and 4. points 6 (lung) and 10 (bone) for type (a) algorithms for The results are grouped according to the energies and all energies (Figure 3). The differences up to 9% for lower the calculation algorithms implemented (with or without energy beams and up to 14.8% for higher energy beams lateral transport). Also the value of the agreement cri- were found in point 6 (lung). The dose in point 10 (bone) teria for each measurement point and their sum, for the was underestimated by 6% for lower energy beams and points where there are contributions from a several 7.2% for higher energy beams. Type (b) algorithms beams coming from various directions, is shown as a yielded results within the agreement criteria (Figure 4). thick purple line. Before the audit, all three centers used algorithms type The differences in the results between centres with (a) for dose calculation in treatment plans for all similar calculation algorithms could be partly attributed patients. During the comparison of both algorithm types to model beam fitting process and CMS XiO TPS limita- in clinical cases the largest deviations were observed for tions to model different accelerator’s heads. lung tumor patients treated with higher energy beams. It - TPS 1.4 - meas. 1.2 HU 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 Relative 0.8 electron density 0.6 0.4 - Hospital 1 - Hospital 2 0.2 - Hospital 3 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 Hounsfield units Figure 2 CT calibration curves measured with CIRS phantom at three different hospitals. RED 1.506 SUM SUM F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 5 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 convolution-6X - Hospital 1 - Hospital 2 - Hospital 3 - agreement criteria 56 27 3 7 10 55 3 9 10 1 3 10 test test test 1 test 4 test 5 test 6 test 7 test 8 2 3 -5 a) 15 convolution-15X - Hospital 1 - Hospital 2 - Hospital 3 - agreement criteria 3 910 1 3 56 10 27 31 7 0 5 5 test test test 1 test 4 test 5 test 6 test 7 test 8 2 3 -5 b) Figure 3 Difference between measured and calculated point doses for each test case for model based algorithms - no lateral transport. (a) 6 MV photon beams, (b) 15 MV photon beams. was noticed that high energy lung treatment plans calcu- with a mini phantom were performed to correct this lated by algorithms type (a) may result in reduction of problem. In another hospital, a mistake in a wedge factor PTV volume covered by 95% isodose by up to 18%. Due entry for a high energy beam and 15 degree hard wedge to this problem, the change in clinical practice was was discovered for the field 15x15 cm and it was introduced after the audit in all three centers and all corrected. dose calculations in the thorax region are performed The TPS data review within this audit appeared to be with type (b) algorithm. an excellent opportunity to spot any errors in the local Also, the verification of basic dosimetry data input TPS data and correct them. into TPS was done. After the review of the dosimetric data entered into the local TPS, it was found that the Discussion head scatter factors for a 15 MV photon beam in one of An adjustment in CT numbers to the RED conversion the hospitals were not correct and new measurements curve was needed in two out of three TPSs in the high deviation[%] deviation[%] SUM SUM F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 SUM SUM F4 F4 F3 F3 F2 F2 F1 F1 Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 6 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 - Hospital 1 superposition-6X - Hospital 2 - Hospital 3 - agreement criteria 3 56 10 27 31 7 0 55 3 910 1 test test test 1 test 4 test 5 test 6 test 7 test 8 2 3 -5 a) - Hospital 1 superposition-15X - Hospital 2 - Hospital 3 - agreement criteria 3 910 1 3 56 10 27 31 7 0 55 test test test 1 test 4 test 5 test 6 test 7 test 8 2 3 -5 b) Figure 4 Difference between measured and calculated point doses for each test case for model based algorithms with lateral transport. (a) 6 MV photon beams, (b) 15 MV photon beams. density region according to criteria from TRS 430. The [16]. Doses inside the bone equivalent material were differences of 6-12% were found in the region with dens- underestimated by up to 7% for both 6 MV and 15 MV ities above that for water. However, the magnitude of beams for both algorithm types [17]. In general, the type the error in the calculated dose due to this difference (a) algorithms are not adequate for dose calculations in was estimated to be less than 2% for the 6 MV photon the presence of and inside low density inhomogeneities, beam passing through 5 cm thick material with the RED while the type (b) algorithms showed good results for all of 1.5 [9,15]. Therefore, the adjustments were not car- test cases. ried out. Accordingly, a comparison of calculation for different Although the TPS algorithm testing was not the pur- clinical lung treatment plans was carried out. Patient pose of the audit, several general conclusions could be plans were calculated by both algorithms, but irradiated drawn. The systematic dose overestimation by up to 15% according to the results of the advanced type (b) algo- for the type (a) calculation algorithms was recorded for rithm. The overall treatment time calculated with algo- all measurement points located inside the lung equiva- rithm type (b), was 5–7% longer in comparison to the lent material. It was observed that the range of devia- calculation of algorithm type (a), and the coverage of tions was related to the beam energy, i.e. larger PTV, in terms of 95% isodose, was better (up to 18%). deviations were observed for the higher beam energy That means that the plan calculated by the simpler deviation[%] deviation[%] Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 7 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 algorithm was actually overestimating the dose to be with high patient load and limited staff and enables the delivered, in reality leading to the underdosage of the user to have his/her work evaluated by an independent target volume. This applies both to lower energy and peer reviewer. even more to higher energy beams. Differences between doses calculated with algorithms Conclusions type (a) and (b) are primarily due to changes in electron The methodology described in the IAEA TECDOC 1583 transport in the lungs, which is not adequately taken was used to perform TPS audits in three radiotherapy into account by algorithms type (a). Many papers have centers of Serbia. A few discrepancies in basic dosimet- demonstrated that simplistic algorithms can overesti- ric data were discovered and corrected. The results also mate the dose at tumor lung boundary which may be indicated the shortcomings of type (a) treatment plan- misleading clinically and even contra-indicated [18-21]. ning algorithms and, therefore the transition to more Following findings from the audit, and recommenda- advanced algorithms, type (b), was implemented [25]. In tions from the literature [11], the preferred beam energy addition, it was decided to consistently plan future lung for planning the lung tumors, was moved from higher to cancer treatments with lower energy photon beams for lower energies in most thorax cases in the audited which the TPS dose calculations are more accurate com- clinics. In some cases were used combinations of higher pared to those for higher energy beams. The audit could and lower energy beams due to better dose distribution. also help the users to appreciate the properties, qualities Transition to more advanced algorithms provides a and operational characteristics of treatment planning better consistency between the reported and actually systems and to better understand their limitations. delivered doses, which opens opportunities for establish- ing a more precise dose-volume relationship for tumours Competing interests and normal tissues [22]. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The range of the dose deviations that occurred in this Authors’ contributions audit exercise reflects the relative dosimetric accuracy of LR: substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, the treatment planning process from CT scanning to the treatment planning, analysis and interpretation of data, writing the draft of dose delivery [23]. The accuracy of the dose calculation the manuscript, revising it critically for important intellectual content. BP: analysis and interpretation of data, substantial contributions to conception algorithm is one of the main factors affecting the overall and design, revising it critically for important intellectual content, have given uncertainty of the dose delivered to the patient, and it is final approval of the version to be published. MB: treatment planning of test very important to perform various tests to better under- cases, revision of manuscript. MT: treatment planning of test cases, revision of manuscript. OČ: acquisition of data, revision of manuscript. EG: substantial stand the TPS limitations. The test cases presented contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and within this audit proved to be useful to verify the TPS interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, revising it critically for calculations with measurements and to estimate the important intellectual content, have given final approval of the version to be published. JI: substantial contributions to conception and design, drafting magnitude of algorithm limitations in situations close to the manuscript, revising it critically for important intellectual content, have clinical settings, however, it should be understood that given final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and the type and number of tests performed should depend approved the final manuscript. on the local practice of a particular institution. The users of different TPSs may utilize the final results Acknowledgements This audit was supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency of tests as a reference data for the ongoing periodic QA through a Technical Co-operation Project RER/6/018: "Strengthening checks. However, it is important to emphasize that the Regional Capacity in Medical Radiation Physics". The authors would like to final dose calculation results may be affected by different express special thanks to the physicists of various radiotherapy departments who helped with the measurements, and particularly Mr. Milan Sarić and Mr. factors, such as the dose calculation grid, inadequacies Goran Kolarević (Institute of oncology and radiology of Serbia, Belgrade, in input data, the choice of phantom used, and others. Serbia), Mr. Dragan Nikolić and Ms. Tamara Jovanović (Clinical center, Niš, The ionization chamber dosimetry with a limited Serbia). number of points has some restrictions as the results Author details may depend on the selection of individual points. How- 1 2 Institute of oncology of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia. North Estonia ever, the end-to-end approach is considered adequate Regional Hospital, Tallinn, Estonia. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. for the evaluation of the overall quality of the dose cal- culations and to explore the limitations of the TPS Received: 13 June 2012 Accepted: 6 September 2012 [9,24]. Some aspects such as the penumbra widening in Published: 12 September 2012 low density materials at higher energy beams (test 1, point 9) may be better explored using film dosimetry References 1. IAEA: Investigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in but this was beyond the objectives of this study [23]. Panama. Vienna: IAEA; 2001. Another advantage of the TPS audit is that it can be 2. IAEA: Lessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety performed in a reasonable amount of time in hospitals Reports Series No. 17. Vienna: IAEA; 2000. Rutonjski et al. Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:155 Page 8 of 8 http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/155 3. AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine): Quality assurance 24. Schiefer H, Fogliata A, Nicolini G, et al: The Swiss IMRT dosimetry for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998, intercomparison using a thorax phantom. Med Phys 2010, 25:1773–1829. report 53. 37(8):4424–4431. 4. Mijnheer B, Olszewska A, Fiorino C, et al: Quality assurance of treatment 25. Petrovic B, Rutonjski L, Baucal M, Teodorovic M, Gershkevitsh E: Verification planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams. Brussels: of newly upgraded radiation therapy treatment planning system XIO CMS at ESTRO; 2005. ESTRO Booklet no. 7. the Institute of oncology Vojvodina, International Symposium on Standards, 5. Nisbet A, Beange I, Vollmar HS, Irvine C, Morgan A, Thwaites DI: Dosimetric Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical radiation Dosimetry (IDOS). verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated Book of extended synopses.Vienna: IAEA; 2010:435–436. clinical situations. Radiother Oncol 2004, 73:79–88. 6. Davidson SE, Ibbott GS, Prado KL, Dong L, Liao Z, Followill DS: Accuracy of doi:10.1186/1748-717X-7-155 two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment Cite this article as: Rutonjski et al.: Dosimetric verification of plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. Med Phys radiotherapy treatment planning systems in Serbia: national audit. Radiation Oncology 2012 7:155. 2007, 34:1850–1857. 7. Cheng CW, Das IJ, Tang W, et al: Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997, 38:835–842. 8. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Technical Report Series 430 Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. Vienna: IAEA; 2005. 9. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. Vienna: IAEA; 2008. TECDOC 1583. 10. Venselaar JLM, Welleweerd J: Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical setting. Radiother Oncol 2001, 60:203–213. 11. AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine): Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for MV photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing; 2004. Report 85. 12. Kappas C, Rosenwald JC: Quality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systems. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 32:847–858. 13. Knoos T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al: Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:5785–5807. 14. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. Vienna: IAEA; 2000. Technical Report Series 398. 15. Chu JCH, Ni B, Kriz R, Saxena VA: Applications of simulator computed tomography number for photon dose calculations during radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol 2000, 55:65–73. 16. Alam R, Ibbott GS, Pourang R, Nath R: Application of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapy. Med Phys 1997, 24:2043–2054. 17. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Duch MA, et al: Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneities. Med Phys 2007, 34:3323–3333. 18. Orton CG, Chungbin S, Klein EE, Gillin MT, Schultheiss TE, Sause WT: Study of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88–08). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 41(4):787–794. 19. Yorke E, Harisiadis L, Wessels B, Aghdam H, Altemus R: Dosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 34(2):481–487. 20. Zhu XR, Low DA, Harms WB, Purdy JA: A convolution-adapted ratio-TAR algorithm for 3D photon beam treatment planning. Med Phys 1995, Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central 22:1315–1327. and take full advantage of: 21. Klein EE, Morrison A, Purdy JA, Graham MV, Matthews J: A volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections • Convenient online submission for 6 MV and 18 MV photons. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997, • Thorough peer review 37:1163–1170. 22. Pettersen MN, Aird E, Olsen DR: Quality assurance of dosimetry and the • No space constraints or color figure charges impact on sample size. Radiother Oncol 2008, 86:195–199. • Immediate publication on acceptance 23. Gershkevitsh E, Schmidt R, Velez G, Miller D, Korf E, Yip F, Wanwilairat • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar S, Vatnitsky S: Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot study. Radiother Oncol 2008, • Research which is freely available for redistribution 89:338–346. Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Radiation Oncology – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 12, 2012
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.