The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison

被引:48
作者
Childress, NL [1 ]
Rosen, II [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Phys, Houston, TX 77030 USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2003年 / 56卷 / 05期
关键词
film dosimetry; dose distribution analysis; quality assurance; IMRT treatment plan verification; radiation therapy;
D O I
10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00430-9
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: New multidimensional dose comparison parameters, normalized agreement test (NAT) values and the NAT index, are introduced and compared with an ideal dose comparison parameter. In this article, we analyze a clinically based two-dimensional (2D) quantitative dose comparison case using a wide range of new and old comparison tools. In doing so, we address the benefits and limitations of many common dose comparison tools. Methods and Materials: An in-house software program was developed using the MATLAB 6.5 programming language. Using this software, several 2D quantitative dose comparison, parameters were calculated for the computed and measured dose distributions in an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) prostate cancer treatment. The experiences gained in the design and testing of this software program form the basis of the dose comparison tool analysis. Results: Each dose comparison tool has unique strengths and weaknesses. The underlying assumptions of the NAT values and NAT index lead to acceptable generalized behavior, but are not always valid. Conclusion: A thorough 2D quantitative dose comparison analysis can only be accomplished through the use of many dose comparison tools. The introduction of the NAT index allows a 2D dose comparison to be reduced to a single value, and is thus ideal for setting clinical acceptance criteria for IMRT verifications. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1464 / 1479
页数:16
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Arnfield M R, 2001, Med Dosim, V26, P179, DOI 10.1016/S0958-3947(01)00058-9
[2]  
ATTIX FH, 1966, RAD DOSIMETRY, V2
[3]   The linear-quadratic model and most other common radiobiological models result in similar predictions of time-dose relationships [J].
Brenner, DJ ;
Hlatky, LR ;
Hahnfeldt, PJ ;
Huang, Y ;
Sachs, RK .
RADIATION RESEARCH, 1998, 150 (01) :83-91
[4]  
CARLSON H, 2001, MED DOSIM, V26, P151
[5]   Rapid radiographic film calibration for IMRT verification using automated MLC fields [J].
Childress, NL ;
Dong, L ;
Rosen, II .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (10) :2384-2390
[6]   A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation [J].
Depuydt, T ;
Van Esch, A ;
Huyskens, DP .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2002, 62 (03) :309-319
[7]   Dosimetry of therapeutic photon beams using an extended dose range film [J].
Esthappan, J ;
Mutic, S ;
Harms, WB ;
Dempsey, JF ;
Low, DA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (10) :2438-2445
[8]   Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: The inverse, the converse, and the perverse [J].
Glatstein, E .
SEMINARS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2002, 12 (03) :272-281
[9]   A software toes for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms [J].
Harms, WB ;
Low, DA ;
Wong, JW ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (10) :1830-1836
[10]   A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions [J].
Low, DA ;
Harms, WB ;
Mutic, S ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (05) :656-661