SU‐E‐T‐427

Verification of the Accuracy of a Commercial Pre‐Treatment IM QA Software

K. Gifford, L. Hunter, Matthew Ballo, S. Kirsner, B. Mason, C. Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To verify the accuracy of a commercial pre‐treatment IMRT software. Methods: Basic beam data, such as OFs and PDDs, for 6MV 18MV were computed on an identical CT data set with the physical de set to 1.0 g/cc for field sizes ranging from 4 × 4 to 30 × 30 cm2 in Pinna (Philips International B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Dosim Check (DC) (MathResolutions LLC, Columbia, MD). Eleven patient p previously measured with our current QA technique were re‐meas utilizing the Varian 21EX EPID (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo CA) and recomputed in DC. Absolute doses were compared betw ionometry and those predicted by DC as well as Pinnacle3. 2D iso comparisons were performed between Pinnacle3 and DC in the region o film insert of the battery phantom. Gamma volume histograms computed to compare the dose predicted by DC and Pinnacle3 in 3D. percentage of points less than or equal to a gamma of 1.0 (±3% or ±3 was recorded for each patient plan. Results: Median difference between and ionometry for 6 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Median differ between DC and ionometry for 18 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 6 MV PDDs was 0.5%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 18 MV PDDs was 0.3%. Me percent difference between ion chamber and Dosimetry Check was (range: −2.4%–2.8%). Median percent difference between Dosimetry C and Pinnacle3 was 1.0% for the same ion chamber position. Median pe of points passing ±3% or ±3 mm was 98.5% (range: 91.7%–99. Conclusions: Dosimetry Check can compute basic beam data to w acceptable clinical accuracy (±2%). Dosimetry Check can compute abso doses in complex IMRT cases to within acceptable clinical accuracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Software
Ions
Netherlands
Datasets

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐427 : Verification of the Accuracy of a Commercial Pre‐Treatment IM QA Software. / Gifford, K.; Hunter, L.; Ballo, Matthew; Kirsner, S.; Mason, B.; Nelson, C.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 01.01.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gifford, K. ; Hunter, L. ; Ballo, Matthew ; Kirsner, S. ; Mason, B. ; Nelson, C. / SU‐E‐T‐427 : Verification of the Accuracy of a Commercial Pre‐Treatment IM QA Software. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6.
@article{3728b0d3f20e46b38ce3f9c6070002bf,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐427: Verification of the Accuracy of a Commercial Pre‐Treatment IM QA Software",
abstract = "Purpose: To verify the accuracy of a commercial pre‐treatment IMRT software. Methods: Basic beam data, such as OFs and PDDs, for 6MV 18MV were computed on an identical CT data set with the physical de set to 1.0 g/cc for field sizes ranging from 4 × 4 to 30 × 30 cm2 in Pinna (Philips International B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Dosim Check (DC) (MathResolutions LLC, Columbia, MD). Eleven patient p previously measured with our current QA technique were re‐meas utilizing the Varian 21EX EPID (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo CA) and recomputed in DC. Absolute doses were compared betw ionometry and those predicted by DC as well as Pinnacle3. 2D iso comparisons were performed between Pinnacle3 and DC in the region o film insert of the battery phantom. Gamma volume histograms computed to compare the dose predicted by DC and Pinnacle3 in 3D. percentage of points less than or equal to a gamma of 1.0 (±3{\%} or ±3 was recorded for each patient plan. Results: Median difference between and ionometry for 6 MV OFs was less than 1.0{\%}. Median differ between DC and ionometry for 18 MV OFs was less than 1.0{\%}. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 6 MV PDDs was 0.5{\%}. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 18 MV PDDs was 0.3{\%}. Me percent difference between ion chamber and Dosimetry Check was (range: −2.4{\%}–2.8{\%}). Median percent difference between Dosimetry C and Pinnacle3 was 1.0{\%} for the same ion chamber position. Median pe of points passing ±3{\%} or ±3 mm was 98.5{\%} (range: 91.7{\%}–99. Conclusions: Dosimetry Check can compute basic beam data to w acceptable clinical accuracy (±2{\%}). Dosimetry Check can compute abso doses in complex IMRT cases to within acceptable clinical accuracy.",
author = "K. Gifford and L. Hunter and Matthew Ballo and S. Kirsner and B. Mason and C. Nelson",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.3612381",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐427

T2 - Verification of the Accuracy of a Commercial Pre‐Treatment IM QA Software

AU - Gifford, K.

AU - Hunter, L.

AU - Ballo, Matthew

AU - Kirsner, S.

AU - Mason, B.

AU - Nelson, C.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To verify the accuracy of a commercial pre‐treatment IMRT software. Methods: Basic beam data, such as OFs and PDDs, for 6MV 18MV were computed on an identical CT data set with the physical de set to 1.0 g/cc for field sizes ranging from 4 × 4 to 30 × 30 cm2 in Pinna (Philips International B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Dosim Check (DC) (MathResolutions LLC, Columbia, MD). Eleven patient p previously measured with our current QA technique were re‐meas utilizing the Varian 21EX EPID (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo CA) and recomputed in DC. Absolute doses were compared betw ionometry and those predicted by DC as well as Pinnacle3. 2D iso comparisons were performed between Pinnacle3 and DC in the region o film insert of the battery phantom. Gamma volume histograms computed to compare the dose predicted by DC and Pinnacle3 in 3D. percentage of points less than or equal to a gamma of 1.0 (±3% or ±3 was recorded for each patient plan. Results: Median difference between and ionometry for 6 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Median differ between DC and ionometry for 18 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 6 MV PDDs was 0.5%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 18 MV PDDs was 0.3%. Me percent difference between ion chamber and Dosimetry Check was (range: −2.4%–2.8%). Median percent difference between Dosimetry C and Pinnacle3 was 1.0% for the same ion chamber position. Median pe of points passing ±3% or ±3 mm was 98.5% (range: 91.7%–99. Conclusions: Dosimetry Check can compute basic beam data to w acceptable clinical accuracy (±2%). Dosimetry Check can compute abso doses in complex IMRT cases to within acceptable clinical accuracy.

AB - Purpose: To verify the accuracy of a commercial pre‐treatment IMRT software. Methods: Basic beam data, such as OFs and PDDs, for 6MV 18MV were computed on an identical CT data set with the physical de set to 1.0 g/cc for field sizes ranging from 4 × 4 to 30 × 30 cm2 in Pinna (Philips International B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Dosim Check (DC) (MathResolutions LLC, Columbia, MD). Eleven patient p previously measured with our current QA technique were re‐meas utilizing the Varian 21EX EPID (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo CA) and recomputed in DC. Absolute doses were compared betw ionometry and those predicted by DC as well as Pinnacle3. 2D iso comparisons were performed between Pinnacle3 and DC in the region o film insert of the battery phantom. Gamma volume histograms computed to compare the dose predicted by DC and Pinnacle3 in 3D. percentage of points less than or equal to a gamma of 1.0 (±3% or ±3 was recorded for each patient plan. Results: Median difference between and ionometry for 6 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Median differ between DC and ionometry for 18 MV OFs was less than 1.0%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 6 MV PDDs was 0.5%. Me difference between DC and ionometry for 18 MV PDDs was 0.3%. Me percent difference between ion chamber and Dosimetry Check was (range: −2.4%–2.8%). Median percent difference between Dosimetry C and Pinnacle3 was 1.0% for the same ion chamber position. Median pe of points passing ±3% or ±3 mm was 98.5% (range: 91.7%–99. Conclusions: Dosimetry Check can compute basic beam data to w acceptable clinical accuracy (±2%). Dosimetry Check can compute abso doses in complex IMRT cases to within acceptable clinical accuracy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024796087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024796087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3612381

DO - 10.1118/1.3612381

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -