A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis.
A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1120/jacmp.v8i3.2448
复制
发表时间：
2007-07-17
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Simon JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nelms BE;Simon JA
调强放射治疗(IMRT)的质量保证(QA)系统已成为现代临床医学物理科的标准工具。然而，由于正式的行业标准或专业协会的建议尚未定义，IMRT QA分析的方法因机构而异。了解目前的情况是提高调强放射治疗质量保证有效性和制定标准的重要一步。因此，我们进行了IMRT质量保证调查。这项特别的调查仅限于电子二维二极管阵列设备的用户，但我们注意保持问题的概括性和实用性。这项在线调查对机构进行了调查(每个机构一项调查)，内容是关于IMRT QA方法的一系列问题。这些主题是所有调强放射治疗系统通用的调强放射治疗质量保证分析方法的一般性主题；没有一个问题是供应商或产品特定的。调查结果显示，相当大比例(32.8%)的机构(32.8%)使用单机架角度合成法进行IMRT QA分析，而不是逐场分析。大多数机构进行的是绝对剂量比较，而不是相对剂量比较，3%标准最常用于百分比差异分析，3 mm标准最常用于协议距离分析。最流行的验收测试标准是3%和3 mm的组合标准。相当大比例的机构报告尚未制定验收测试的标准基准--具体而言，26.6%、35.3%和67.6%的机构尚未分别为前列腺、头颈部和乳房调强放射治疗建立标准验收标准。这项调查有助于了解机构目前是如何进行IMRT QA分析的。这一理解将有助于推动机构走向更标准化的验收测试。但在标准确定之前，使用临床相关的指标(如剂量-体积直方图的估计偏差)将传统的平面QA分析与其对总体计划的结果影响联系起来将是有用的。PAC编号：87.50.Gi，87.52.Df，87.52.Px，87.53.Dq，87.53.Tf，87.53.Kn，87.56.Fc
Quality assurance (QA) systems for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have become standard tools in modern clinical medical physics departments. However, because formalized industry standards or recommendations from professional societies have yet to be defined, methods of IMRT QA analysis vary from institution to institution. Understanding where matters stand today is an important step toward improving the effectiveness of IMRT QA and developing standards. We therefore conducted an IMRT QA survey. This particular survey was limited to users of an electronic two‐dimensional diode array device, but we took care to keep the questions as general and useful as possible. The online survey polled institutions (one survey per institution) on a collection of questions about methods of IMRT QA. The topics were general to the IMRT QA analysis methods common to all IMRT systems; none of the questions was vendor‐ or product‐specific. Survey results showed that a significant proportion of responding institutions (32.8%) use the single‐gantry‐angle composite method for IMRT QA analysis instead of field‐by‐field analysis. Most institutions perform absolute dose comparisons rather than relative dose comparisons, with the 3% criterion being used most often for the percentage difference analysis, and the 3 mm criterion for distance‐to‐agreement analysis. The most prevalent standard for acceptance testing is the combined 3% and 3 mm criteria. A significant percentage of responding institutions report not yet having standard benchmarks for acceptance testing—specifically, 26.6%, 35.3%, and 67.6% had not yet established standard acceptance criteria for prostate, head and neck, and breast IMRT respectively. This survey helps in understanding how institutions perform IMRT QA analysis today. This understanding will help to move institutions toward more standardized acceptance testing. But before standards are defined, it would be useful to connect the conventional planar QA analyses to their resulting impact on the overall plan, using clinically relevant metrics (such as estimated deviations in dose–volume histograms). PACS numbers: 87.50.Gi, 87.52.Df, 87.52.Px, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Tf, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Fc
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/0360-3016(93)90206-b
发表时间：
1993-05-20
影响因子：
7
作者：
VANDYK, J;BARNETT, RB;SHRAGGE, PC
通讯作者：
SHRAGGE, PC
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Jursinic, PA;Nelms, BE
通讯作者：
Nelms, BE
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Létourneau, D;Gulam, M;Wong, JW
通讯作者：
Wong, JW
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Low, DA;Harms, WB;Purdy, JA
通讯作者：
Purdy, JA
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Renner, Wendel Dean;Norton, Kevin;Holmes, Timothy
通讯作者：
Holmes, Timothy