Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery.
Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements.
Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively.
Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.
","abstract_html":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery.<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Ohrt, Jared D","Balter, Peter","Gillin, Michael","Laurence, Court","Rosen, Issac","Johnson, Valen"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Masters of Science (MS)","degree_level":"Thesis (MS)","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Peter Balter, PhD","Michael Gillin, PhD","Laurence Court, PhD"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2012,"date_issued":"2012-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2012-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:49:54Z","subjects":["IMRT QA","MLC dynalog","Calculation-based","second Treatment Planning software","Delivery Verification","Medicine and Health Sciences"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/utgsbs_dissertations/262","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Peter Balter, PhD","Michael Gillin, PhD","Laurence Court, PhD"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Ohrt, Jared D","Balter, Peter","Gillin, Michael","Laurence, Court","Rosen, Issac","Johnson, Valen"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2013-07-26T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis (MS)"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Masters of Science (MS)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["IMRT QA","MLC dynalog","Calculation-based","second Treatment Planning software","Delivery Verification","Medicine and Health Sciences"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/utgsbs_dissertations/262"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery.
Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements.
Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively.
Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comprehensive Calculation-Based Imrt Qa Using R&V Data, Treatment Records, and A Second Treatment Planning System"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Peter Balter, PhD","Michael Gillin, PhD","Laurence Court, PhD"],"dc:creator":["Ohrt, Jared D","Balter, Peter","Gillin, Michael","Laurence, Court","Rosen, Issac","Johnson, Valen"],"dc:date.available":["2013-07-26T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery.
Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements.
Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively.
Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/utgsbs_dissertations/262"],"dc:subject":["IMRT QA","MLC dynalog","Calculation-based","second Treatment Planning software","Delivery Verification","Medicine and Health Sciences"],"dc:title":["Comprehensive Calculation-Based Imrt Qa Using R&V Data, Treatment Records, and A Second Treatment Planning System"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis (MS)"],"thesis:degree_name":["Masters of Science (MS)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:49:54Z"}