In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.

No abstract

Purpose-To compare intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) with 3D-conformal proton therapy (3D-CPT) for early stage prostate cancer, and explore the potential utility of intensitymodulated proton therapy (IMPT).Methods-Ten patients were planned with both 3D-CPT (2 parallel-opposed lateral fields) and IMRT (7 equally spaced coplanar fields). Prescribed dose was 79.2 Gy (or cobalt Gray-equivalent, CGE for protons) to the prostate gland. Dose-volume histograms, dose conformity, and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. Additionally, plans were optimized for 3D-CPT with nonstandard beam configuration, and for IMPT assuming delivery with beam scanning.Results-At least 98% of the PTV received the prescription dose. IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target, while proton plans achieved higher dose homogeneity, and better sparing of rectum and bladder in the range below 30 Gy/CGE. Bladder volumes receiving over 70 Gy/CGE (V 70 ) were reduced, on average, by 34% with IMRT vs. 3D-CPT, while rectal V 70 were equivalent. EUD from 3D-CPT and IMRT plans were indistinguishable within uncertainties, for both bladder and rectum. With the use of small-angle lateral-oblique fields in 3D-CPT and IMPT, the rectal V 70 was reduced by up to 35% compared to the standard lateral configuration, while the bladder V 70 increased by less than 10%.Conclusions-In the range over 60 Gy/CGE, IMRT achieved significantly better sparing of the bladder, while rectal sparing was similar with 3D-CPT and IMRT. Dose to healthy tissues in the range below 50% of the target prescription was substantially lower with proton therapy.

External beam irradiation requires precise positioning of the target relative to the treatment planning coordinate system. A three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging system for patient positioning has recently been installed in one of our linear accelerator (linac) rooms. The device utilizes close-range photogrammetry to generate a 3D model of the patient's surface. This geometric model can be made to look like a digital camera image if wrapped with a gray-level image (texture mapping) that shows surface coloration. The system is calibrated to the linac coordinate system and has been designed as a patient setup device. To reproduce patient position in fractionated radiotherapy, the daily patient surface model is registered to a previously recorded reference surface. Using surface registration, the system calculates the rigid-body transformation that minimizes the distance between the treatment and the reference surface models in a region-of-interest (ROI). This transformation is expressed as a set of new couch coordinates at which the patient position best matches with the reference data. If respiratory motion is a concern, the surface can be obtained with a gated acquisition at a specified phase of the respiratory cycle. To analyze the accuracy of the system, we performed several experiments with phantoms to assess stability, alignment accuracy, precision of the gating function, and surface topology. The reproducibility of surface measurements was tested for periods up to 57 h. Each recorded frame was registered to the reference surface to calculate the required couch adjustment. The system stability over this time period was better than 0.5 mm. To measure the accuracy of the system to detect and quantify patient shift relative to a reference image, we compared the shift detected by the surface imaging system with known couch transitions in a phantom study. The maximum standard deviation was 0.75 mm for the three translational degrees of freedom, and less than 0.1 degrees for each rotation. Surface model precision was tested against computed tomography (CT)-derived surface topology. The root-mean-square rms of the distance between the surfaces was 0.65 mm, excluding regions where beam hardening caused artifacts in the CT data. Measurements were made to test the gated acquisition mode. The time-dependent amplitude was measured with the surface imaging system and an established respiratory gating system based on infrared (IR)-marker detection. The measured motion trajectories from both systems were compared to the known trajectory of the stage. The standard deviations of the amplitude differences to the motor trajectory were 0.04 and 0.15 mm for the IR-marker system and the 3D surface imaging system, respectively. A limitation of the surface-imaging device is the frame rate of 6.5 Hz, because rapid changes of the motion trajectory cannot be detected. In conclusion, the system is accurate and sufficiently stable to be used in the clinic. The errors computed when comparing the surface model with CT geometry were submi...