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
. 2017 Aug 1;98(5):1197-1203.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.03.049. Epub 2017 Apr 4.

Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures

Affiliations

Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures

James R Kerns et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. .

Abstract

Purpose: The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors.

Methods and materials: A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a "considerable" institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique.

Results: Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors.

Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Difference values in accuracy between the institution’s treatment planning system (TPS) calculation and IROC-Houston’s reference recalculation. Positive values indicate the recalculation was more accurate. The top and middle panels show the same data with different color overlays. The top overlay indicates the institution’s original agreement with the phantom’s thermoluminescent dosimeters. Cyan indicates the institution calculated the delivered dose very accurately, whereas dark red indicates the institution calculated the delivered dose very poorly. Pink values in the middle and bottom panels indicate a considerable TPS calculation error for that irradiation.

References

    1. Nelms BE, Chan M, Jarry G, Lemire M, Lowden J, Hampton C, Feygelman V. Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: Practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. Medical Physics. 2013;40(11) 111722-1-15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Molineu A, Followill DS, Balter PA, Hanson WF, Gillin MT, Huq MS, Eisbruch A, Ibbott GS. Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2005;63(2):577–583. - PubMed
    1. Followill DS, Evans DR, Cherry C, Molineu A, Fisher G, Hanson WF, Ibbott GS. Design, development, and implementation of the radiological physics center’s pelvis and thorax anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms. Medical physics. 2007;34(6):2070–2076. - PubMed
    1. Ibbott GS, Molineu A, Followill DS. Independent evaluations of IMRT through the use of an anthropomorphic phantom. Technology in cancer research & treatment. 2006;5(5):481–487. - PubMed
    1. Molineu A, Hernandez N, Nguyen T, Ibbott G, Followill D. Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. Medical physics. 2013;40(2):022101. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources