A comparison of accuracy of computer treatment planning systems in brachytherapy

Feroldi, Piero; Galelli, M.; Belletti, S

doi:10.1016/0167-8140(92)90373-3

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…48 • Various other published books and articles on brachytherapy QA. [49][50][51][52][53] Appendix 5 includes examples of a number of brachytherapy test procedures, including tests of dose calculations and source localization methods. The task group recommends that a dose calculation verification test should be performed for each type of brachytherapy source used, and that each method of source localization also be checked.…”

Section: Brachytherapy Calculation Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Brachytherapy Calculation Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The commissioning process consists of entering the right source information and performing a series of checks to ensure that the resultant calculations agree with published benchmark data. Relevant benchmark data can be found in the NCI funded Interstitial Collaborative Work Group report [5], AAPM Task Group 43 report on brachytherapy sources [91], AAPM Task Group 56 report on the AAPM Brachytherapy Code of Practice [93], and in various other reports [43,128,[133][134][135].…”

Section: Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sincere thank you: To Tomas Kron for seeding the concept of this book. To Jerry Battista for providing unending support, for being an excellent "sounding board," and for reviewing a number of my chapters. To the authors and co-authors of the chapters of this book. Their contributions have given this book the quality that it is. To Ervin Podgorsak and Glenn Glasgow who graciously took on the additional challenge of providing more than one chapter. To Christina Woodward for sleuthing and resolving incomplete references. To members of the Medical Physics group at the London Regional Cancer Centre who have been consistent in their help and support. To Betsey Phelps and the staff at Medical Physics Publishing for making this book a reality. To Barb Barons for clerical support.

show abstract

“…For example, Feroldi et al [6] showed in a comparison of TPSs that dose rate errors larger than 5% may occur. To investigate the effect of the different TPSs on the total treatment time, the treatment time as calculated by the TPS in each institution for the speci®c experimental set-up and prescribed dose was normalized to a ®xed source strength.…”

Section: Dose Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of the accuracy of implant reconstruction and dose delivery in brachytherapy in The Netherlands and Belgium

Elfrink¹,

Kolkman-Deurloo²,

Kleffens³

et al. 2001

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To gain insight into the accuracy of brachytherapy treatments, the accuracy of implant reconstruction and dose delivery was investigated in 33 radiotherapy institutions in The Netherlands and Belgium.Materials and methods: The accuracy of the implant reconstruction method was determined using a cubic phantom containing 25 spheres at well-known positions. Reconstruction measurements were obtained on 41 brachytherapy localizers, 33 of which were simulators. The reconstructed distances between the spheres were compared with the true distances. The accuracy of the dose delivery was determined for high dose rate (HDR), pulsed dose rate (PDR) and low dose rate (LDR) afterloading systems using a polymethyl methacrylate cylindrical phantom containing a NE 2571 ionization chamber in its centre. The institutions were asked to deliver a prescribed dose at the centre of the phantom. The measured dose was compared with the prescribed dose.Results: The average reconstruction accuracy was 20.07 mm (^0.4 mm, 1 SD) for 41 localizers. The average deviation of the measured dose from the prescribed dose was 10.9% (^1.3%, 1 SD) for 21 HDR afterloading systems, 11.0% (^2.3%, 1 SD) for 12 PDR afterloaders, and 11.8% (^2.5%, 1 SD) for 15 LDR afterloaders.Conclusions: This comparison showed a good accuracy of brachytherapy implant reconstruction and dose delivery in The Netherlands and Belgium. q

show abstract

A comparison of accuracy of computer treatment planning systems in brachytherapy

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists

Determination of the accuracy of implant reconstruction and dose delivery in brachytherapy in The Netherlands and Belgium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About