Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures.

PURPOSE The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a "considerable" institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique. RESULTS Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors. CONCLUSIONS Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.

[1]  David S Followill,et al.  Design, development, and implementation of the radiological physics center's pelvis and thorax anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms. , 2007, Medical physics.

[2]  J. Palta,et al.  Dose variations with varying calculation grid size in head and neck IMRT , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Francesco C Stingo,et al.  Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. , 2016, Medical physics.

[4]  David S Followill,et al.  Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Jonas D. Fontenot,et al.  Evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy treatment planning , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[6]  David S Followill,et al.  Independent Evaluations of IMRT through the Use of an Anthropomorphic Phantom , 2006, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[7]  W F Hanson,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters. , 1992, Medical physics.

[8]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  Andrea Molineu,et al.  Technical Report: Reference photon dosimetry data for Varian accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data. , 2016, Medical physics.

[10]  S Nill,et al.  What is the optimum leaf width of a multileaf collimator? , 2000, Medical physics.

[11]  Indra J. Das,et al.  AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations — Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[12]  Andrea Molineu,et al.  Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. , 2013, Medical physics.

[13]  David S Followill,et al.  Agreement Between Institutional Measurements and Treatment Planning System Calculations for Basic Dosimetric Parameters as Measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Avraham Eisbruch,et al.  Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  Robert J. Shalek,et al.  Determination of Absorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated by Beams of X or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Procedures , 1977 .

[16]  C. Nelson,et al.  Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[17]  Warren Kilby,et al.  Tolerance levels for quality assurance of electron density values generated from CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.