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 journalArticle

493 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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
Volume36
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Film Dosimetry
Credentialing
Physics
Ions

Keywords

  • Commissioning
  • IMRT
  • Quality assurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Ezzell, G. A., Burmeister, J. W., Dogan, N., Losasso, T. J., Mechalakos, J. G., Mihailidis, D., ... Xiao, Y. (2009). IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Medical Physics, 36(11), 5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104

IMRT commissioning : Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. / Ezzell, Gary A.; Burmeister, Jay W.; Dogan, Nesrin; Losasso, Thomas J.; Mechalakos, James G.; Mihailidis, Dimitris; Molineu, Andrea; Palta, Jatinder R.; Ramsey, Chester R.; Salter, Bill J.; Shi, Jie; Xia, Ping; Yue, Ning J.; Xiao, Ying.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 11, 2009, p. 5359-5373.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ezzell, GA, Burmeister, JW, Dogan, N, Losasso, TJ, Mechalakos, JG, Mihailidis, D, Molineu, A, Palta, JR, Ramsey, CR, Salter, BJ, Shi, J, Xia, P, Yue, NJ & Xiao, Y 2009, 'IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119', Medical Physics, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
Ezzell, Gary A. ; Burmeister, Jay W. ; Dogan, Nesrin ; Losasso, Thomas J. ; Mechalakos, James G. ; Mihailidis, Dimitris ; Molineu, Andrea ; Palta, Jatinder R. ; Ramsey, Chester R. ; Salter, Bill J. ; Shi, Jie ; Xia, Ping ; Yue, Ning J. ; Xiao, Ying. / IMRT commissioning : Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. In: Medical Physics. 2009 ; Vol. 36, No. 11. pp. 5359-5373.
@article{83951372883a4d809034945d26d7d037,
title = "IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Commissioning, IMRT, Quality assurance",
author = "Ezzell, {Gary A.} and Burmeister, {Jay W.} and Nesrin Dogan and Losasso, {Thomas J.} and Mechalakos, {James G.} and Dimitris Mihailidis and Andrea Molineu and Palta, {Jatinder R.} and Ramsey, {Chester R.} and Salter, {Bill J.} and Jie Shi and Ping Xia and Yue, {Ning J.} and Ying Xiao",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1118/1.3238104",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "5359--5373",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - IMRT commissioning

T2 - Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119

AU - Ezzell, Gary A.

AU - Burmeister, Jay W.

AU - Dogan, Nesrin

AU - Losasso, Thomas J.

AU - Mechalakos, James G.

AU - Mihailidis, Dimitris

AU - Molineu, Andrea

AU - Palta, Jatinder R.

AU - Ramsey, Chester R.

AU - Salter, Bill J.

AU - Shi, Jie

AU - Xia, Ping

AU - Yue, Ning J.

AU - Xiao, Ying

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Commissioning

KW - IMRT

KW - Quality assurance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350726816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350726816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3238104

DO - 10.1118/1.3238104

M3 - Article

C2 - 19994544

AN - SCOPUS:70350726816

VL - 36

SP - 5359

EP - 5373

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 11

ER -