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
Review
. 2018 Apr;45(4):e53-e83.
doi: 10.1002/mp.12810. Epub 2018 Mar 23.

Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218

Moyed Miften  1 , Arthur Olch  2 , Dimitris Mihailidis  3 , Jean Moran  4 , Todd Pawlicki  5 , Andrea Molineu  6 , Harold Li  7 , Krishni Wijesooriya  8 , Jie Shi  9 , Ping Xia  10 , Nikos Papanikolaou  11 , Daniel A Low  12
Affiliations
Free article
Review

Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218

Moyed Miften et al. Med Phys. 2018 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA.

Methods: The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented.

Results: Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined.

Conclusion: Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

Keywords: DTA; IMRT QA; tolerance limits; γ.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms