skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient

Abstract

Purpose: Systematic radiotherapy plan quality assessment promotes quality improvement. Software tools can perform this analysis by applying site-specific structure dose metrics. The next step is to similarly evaluate the quality of the dose delivery. This study defines metrics for acceptable doses to targets and normal organs for a particular treatment site and scores each plan accordingly. The input can be the TPS or the measurement-based 3D patient dose. From this analysis, one can determine whether the delivered dose distribution to the patient receives a score which is comparable to the TPS plan score, otherwise replanning may be indicated. Methods: Eleven neuroblastoma patient plans were exported from Eclipse to the Quality Reports program. A scoring algorithm defined a score for each normal and target structure based on dose-volume parameters. Each plan was scored by this algorithm and the percentage of total possible points was obtained. Each plan also underwent IMRT QA measurements with a Mapcheck2 or ArcCheck. These measurements were input into the 3DVH program to compute the patient 3D dose distribution which was analyzed using the same scoring algorithm as the TPS plan. Results: The mean quality score for the TPS plans was 75.37% (std dev=14.15%) compared to 71.95% (stdmore » dev=13.45%) for the 3DVH dose distribution. For 3/11 plans, the 3DVH-based quality score was higher than the TPS score, by between 0.5 to 8.4 percentage points. Eight/11 plans scores decreased based on IMRT QA measurements by 1.2 to 18.6 points. Conclusion: Software was used to determine the degree to which the plan quality score differed between the TPS and measurement-based dose. Although the delivery score was generally in good agreement with the planned dose score, there were some that improved while there was one plan whose delivered dose quality was significantly less than planned. This methodology helps evaluate both planned and delivered dose quality. Sun Nuclear Corporation has provded a license for the software described.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538125
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER CODES; NEOPLASMS; NERVE TISSUE; PATIENTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Olch, A. SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
Olch, A. SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
Olch, A. Mon . "SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
@article{osti_22538125,
title = {SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient},
author = {Olch, A},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Systematic radiotherapy plan quality assessment promotes quality improvement. Software tools can perform this analysis by applying site-specific structure dose metrics. The next step is to similarly evaluate the quality of the dose delivery. This study defines metrics for acceptable doses to targets and normal organs for a particular treatment site and scores each plan accordingly. The input can be the TPS or the measurement-based 3D patient dose. From this analysis, one can determine whether the delivered dose distribution to the patient receives a score which is comparable to the TPS plan score, otherwise replanning may be indicated. Methods: Eleven neuroblastoma patient plans were exported from Eclipse to the Quality Reports program. A scoring algorithm defined a score for each normal and target structure based on dose-volume parameters. Each plan was scored by this algorithm and the percentage of total possible points was obtained. Each plan also underwent IMRT QA measurements with a Mapcheck2 or ArcCheck. These measurements were input into the 3DVH program to compute the patient 3D dose distribution which was analyzed using the same scoring algorithm as the TPS plan. Results: The mean quality score for the TPS plans was 75.37% (std dev=14.15%) compared to 71.95% (std dev=13.45%) for the 3DVH dose distribution. For 3/11 plans, the 3DVH-based quality score was higher than the TPS score, by between 0.5 to 8.4 percentage points. Eight/11 plans scores decreased based on IMRT QA measurements by 1.2 to 18.6 points. Conclusion: Software was used to determine the degree to which the plan quality score differed between the TPS and measurement-based dose. Although the delivery score was generally in good agreement with the planned dose score, there were some that improved while there was one plan whose delivered dose quality was significantly less than planned. This methodology helps evaluate both planned and delivered dose quality. Sun Nuclear Corporation has provded a license for the software described.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924979},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}