Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jan;36(1):15-21.
doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.75467.

Dosimetric evaluation of a three-dimensional treatment planning system

Appasamy Murugan  1 , Xavier Sidonia Valas, Kuppusamy Thayalan, Velayudham Ramasubramanian
Affiliations

Dosimetric evaluation of a three-dimensional treatment planning system

Appasamy Murugan et al. J Med Phys. 2011 Jan.

Abstract

The computerized treatment planning system plays a major role in radiation therapy in delivering correct radiation dose to the patients within ±5% as recommended by the ICRU. To evaluate the dosimetric performance of the Treatment Planning system (TPS) with three-dimensional dose calculation algorithm using the basic beam data measured for 6 MV X-rays. Eleven numbers of test cases were created according to the Technical Report Series-430 (TRS 430) and are used to evaluate the TPS in a homogeneous water phantom. These cases involve simple field arrangements as well as the presence of a low-density material in the beam to resemble an air in-homogeneity. Absolute dose measurements were performed for the each case with the MU calculation given by the TPS, and the measured dose is compared with the corresponding TPS calculated dose values. The result yields a percentage difference maximum of 2.38% for all simple test cases. For complex test cases in the presence of in-homogeneity, beam modifiers or beam modifiers with asymmetric fields a maximum percentage difference of 5.94% was observed. This study ensures that the dosimetric calculations performed by the TPS are within the accuracy of ±5% which is very much warranted in patient dose delivery. The test procedures are simple, not only during the installation of TPS, but also repeated at periodic intervals.

Keywords: Dosimetric evaluation; Technical Report Series-430; treatment planning system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 1.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 4
Figure 5
Figure 5
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 5
Figure 6
Figure 6
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 6
Figure 7
Figure 7
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 7
Figure 8
Figure 8
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 8
Figure 9
Figure 9
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 9
Figure 10
Figure 10
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage at different depths for 10 cm2 field size for test case 10
Figure 11
Figure 11
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage at different depths for 10 cm2 field size with Shielding tray and wedge for test case 10
Figure 12
Figure 12
Dose comparisons: Histograms of the differences between calculated and measured values in percentage for test case 11
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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;24:2043–54. - PubMed
    1. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Dose specifications for reporting external beam therapy with photons and electrons. 1978 ICRU Report 29, Baltimore, MD: ICRU Bethesda, MD.
    1. Mijnheer BJ, Batterrmann JJ, Wambersie A. What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neuron therapy? Radiother Oncol. 1987;8:237–52. - PubMed
    1. IEC 1217: “Radiotherapy equipment - Coordinates movements and scales 1996”
    1. Bortfeld T, Schlegel W, Rhein B. Decomposition of pencil beam kernels for fast dose calculations in three-dimensional treatment planning. Med Phys. 1993;20:311–8. - PubMed