IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119

Gary A. Ezzell, Jay W. Burmeister, Nesrin Dogan, Thomas J. Losasso, James G. Mechalakos, Dimitris Mihailidis, Andrea Molineu, Jatinder R. Palta, Chester R. Ramsey, Bill J. Salter, Jie Shi, Ping Xia, Ning J. Yue, Ying Xiao

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

658 Scopus citations


AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit= mean +1.96σ. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5359-5373
Number of pages15
JournalMedical physics
Issue number11
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes


  • Commissioning
  • IMRT
  • Quality assurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this