Auditing local methods for quality assurance in radiotherapy using the same set of predefined treatment plans

Clicks: 460
ID: 56615
2018
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1 of 2 articles by views in physics and imaging in radiation oncology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background and purpose: Local implementation of plan-specific quality assurance (QA) methods for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans may vary because of dissimilarities in procedures, equipment and software. The purpose of this work is detecting possible differences between local QA findings and those of an audit, using the same set of treatment plans. Methods: A pre-defined set of clinical plans was devised and imported in the participating institute’s treatment planning system for dose computation. The dose distribution was measured using an ionisation chamber, radiochromic film and an ionisation chamber array. The centres performed their own QA, which was compared to the audit findings. The agreement/disagreement between the audit and the institute QA results were assessed along with the differences between the dose distributions measured by the audit team and computed by the institute. Results: For the majority of the cases the results of the audit were in agreement with the institute QA findings: ionisation chamber: 92%, array: 88%, film: 76% of the total measurements. In only a few of these cases the evaluated measurements failed for both: ionisation chamber: 2%, array: 4%, film: 0% of the total measurements. Conclusion: Using predefined treatment plans, we found that in approximately 80% of the evaluated measurements the results of local QA of IMRT and VMAT plans were in line with the findings of the audit. However, the percentage of agreement/disagreement depended on the characteristics of the measurement equipment used and on the analysis metric. Keywords: Quality assurance, Dosimetry audit, IMRT, VMAT, QA devices
Reference Key
seravalli2018auditingphysics Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Seravalli, Enrica;Houweling, Antonetta C.;Battum, Leo Van;Raaben, Thom A.;Kuik, Marc;Pooter, Jacco A. de;Gellekom, Marion P.R. Van;Kaas, Jochem;Vries, Wilfred de;Loeff, Erik A.;Kamer, Jeroen B. Van de;
Journal physics and imaging in radiation oncology
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631617300799
Keywords
chemistry Medicine (General) Medicine Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Technology Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system physics medical physics. medical radiology. nuclear medicine neoplasms. tumors. oncology. including cancer and carcinogens ophthalmology applied optics. photonics

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.