SU‐FF‐T‐159

Patient Quality Assurance Analysis for Tomotherapy

Nikos Papanikolaou, C. Y. Shi, Y. Yan, X. Weng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: IMRT plans developed for conventional Linac equipped with dynamic MLC can be independently verified using a number of commercially available software packages. For the HiArt TomoTherapy unit however, the only dose verification mechanism is by measurement. The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the patient specific quality assurance results for the HiArt TomoTherapy intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning and delivery system in our clinic. Method and Materials: We have developed a systematic patient specific IMRT QA program that was implemented in April of 2004. Once a QA plan is calculated, the dose to a phantom is measured using ion chamber and film. The ion chamber is placed 5 mm below the film which in turn is placed in the equator of a cylindrical solid water phantom. After the plan is delivered to the phantom, the point dose is recorded and the film is processed. Film calibration is performed daily using an in‐house developed protocol and software tool. Dosimetric analysis is performed after the film and planar dose are co‐registered in the TomoTherapy planning station. In total, 63 patients were analyzed. Results: Dosimetric analysis was performed based on both film and ion chamber measurements. The median and mode discrepancy is below 2% for the point measurements. Similar results are found for the film analysis which provides not only absolute dosimetry but also isodose distribution and profile comparison between measured and calculated planar dose distributions. The plane and points of calculation can introduce small errors in the analysis. Conclusion: A comprehensive patient QA program has been developed and the results of 63 patients are analyzed in this paper. Given the novel approach of TomoTherapy towards IMRT, it is important to see that for the majority of the patients the deviation between planned and delivered doses is less than 2%.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1986
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ions
Software
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Calibration
Water
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐T‐159 : Patient Quality Assurance Analysis for Tomotherapy. / Papanikolaou, Nikos; Shi, C. Y.; Yan, Y.; Weng, X.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005, p. 1986.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Papanikolaou, Nikos ; Shi, C. Y. ; Yan, Y. ; Weng, X. / SU‐FF‐T‐159 : Patient Quality Assurance Analysis for Tomotherapy. In: Medical Physics. 2005 ; Vol. 32, No. 6. pp. 1986.
@article{26a5e22d4c1844b2a33c393d476b77bd,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐159: Patient Quality Assurance Analysis for Tomotherapy",
abstract = "Purpose: IMRT plans developed for conventional Linac equipped with dynamic MLC can be independently verified using a number of commercially available software packages. For the HiArt TomoTherapy unit however, the only dose verification mechanism is by measurement. The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the patient specific quality assurance results for the HiArt TomoTherapy intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning and delivery system in our clinic. Method and Materials: We have developed a systematic patient specific IMRT QA program that was implemented in April of 2004. Once a QA plan is calculated, the dose to a phantom is measured using ion chamber and film. The ion chamber is placed 5 mm below the film which in turn is placed in the equator of a cylindrical solid water phantom. After the plan is delivered to the phantom, the point dose is recorded and the film is processed. Film calibration is performed daily using an in‐house developed protocol and software tool. Dosimetric analysis is performed after the film and planar dose are co‐registered in the TomoTherapy planning station. In total, 63 patients were analyzed. Results: Dosimetric analysis was performed based on both film and ion chamber measurements. The median and mode discrepancy is below 2{\%} for the point measurements. Similar results are found for the film analysis which provides not only absolute dosimetry but also isodose distribution and profile comparison between measured and calculated planar dose distributions. The plane and points of calculation can introduce small errors in the analysis. Conclusion: A comprehensive patient QA program has been developed and the results of 63 patients are analyzed in this paper. Given the novel approach of TomoTherapy towards IMRT, it is important to see that for the majority of the patients the deviation between planned and delivered doses is less than 2{\%}.",
author = "Nikos Papanikolaou and Shi, {C. Y.} and Y. Yan and X. Weng",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1118/1.1997830",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1986",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐159

T2 - Patient Quality Assurance Analysis for Tomotherapy

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

AU - Shi, C. Y.

AU - Yan, Y.

AU - Weng, X.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Purpose: IMRT plans developed for conventional Linac equipped with dynamic MLC can be independently verified using a number of commercially available software packages. For the HiArt TomoTherapy unit however, the only dose verification mechanism is by measurement. The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the patient specific quality assurance results for the HiArt TomoTherapy intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning and delivery system in our clinic. Method and Materials: We have developed a systematic patient specific IMRT QA program that was implemented in April of 2004. Once a QA plan is calculated, the dose to a phantom is measured using ion chamber and film. The ion chamber is placed 5 mm below the film which in turn is placed in the equator of a cylindrical solid water phantom. After the plan is delivered to the phantom, the point dose is recorded and the film is processed. Film calibration is performed daily using an in‐house developed protocol and software tool. Dosimetric analysis is performed after the film and planar dose are co‐registered in the TomoTherapy planning station. In total, 63 patients were analyzed. Results: Dosimetric analysis was performed based on both film and ion chamber measurements. The median and mode discrepancy is below 2% for the point measurements. Similar results are found for the film analysis which provides not only absolute dosimetry but also isodose distribution and profile comparison between measured and calculated planar dose distributions. The plane and points of calculation can introduce small errors in the analysis. Conclusion: A comprehensive patient QA program has been developed and the results of 63 patients are analyzed in this paper. Given the novel approach of TomoTherapy towards IMRT, it is important to see that for the majority of the patients the deviation between planned and delivered doses is less than 2%.

AB - Purpose: IMRT plans developed for conventional Linac equipped with dynamic MLC can be independently verified using a number of commercially available software packages. For the HiArt TomoTherapy unit however, the only dose verification mechanism is by measurement. The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the patient specific quality assurance results for the HiArt TomoTherapy intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning and delivery system in our clinic. Method and Materials: We have developed a systematic patient specific IMRT QA program that was implemented in April of 2004. Once a QA plan is calculated, the dose to a phantom is measured using ion chamber and film. The ion chamber is placed 5 mm below the film which in turn is placed in the equator of a cylindrical solid water phantom. After the plan is delivered to the phantom, the point dose is recorded and the film is processed. Film calibration is performed daily using an in‐house developed protocol and software tool. Dosimetric analysis is performed after the film and planar dose are co‐registered in the TomoTherapy planning station. In total, 63 patients were analyzed. Results: Dosimetric analysis was performed based on both film and ion chamber measurements. The median and mode discrepancy is below 2% for the point measurements. Similar results are found for the film analysis which provides not only absolute dosimetry but also isodose distribution and profile comparison between measured and calculated planar dose distributions. The plane and points of calculation can introduce small errors in the analysis. Conclusion: A comprehensive patient QA program has been developed and the results of 63 patients are analyzed in this paper. Given the novel approach of TomoTherapy towards IMRT, it is important to see that for the majority of the patients the deviation between planned and delivered doses is less than 2%.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024815250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024815250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.1997830

DO - 10.1118/1.1997830

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1986

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -