Independent calculations to validate monitor units from ADAC treatment planning system

Medical Dosimetry

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 79-83

  Ayyangar, Komanduri M ^a,b   Saw, Cheng B ^a   Gearheart, Darren ^a   Shen, Bin ^a   Thompson, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose; Independent calculations; Monitor units; Treatment planning

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; GEOMETRY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION MONITOR; RADIATION SCATTERING; TREATMENT PLANNING; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0037496219     PISSN: 09583947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0958-3947(02)00237-6     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kutcher G.J., Coia L., Gillin M., et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40 . Med. Phys. 21:1994;581-618.
2. Knoos T., Johnsson S.A., Ceberg C.P., et al. Independent checking of the delivered dose for high-energy X-rays using a hand-held PC. Radiother. Oncol. 58:2001;201-208.
3. Duggan L., Kron T., Howlett S., et al. An independent check of treatment plan, prescription and dose calculation as a QA procedure. Radiother. Oncol. 42:1997;297-301.
4. Cheng P.C., Ames T., Howard-Ames T., et al. Monitor unit calculations for breast or chest wall treatments. Med. Dosim. 14:1989;35-36.
5. Cunningham J.R., Shrivastava P.N., Wilkinson J.M. Program IRREG-calculation of dose from irregularly shaped radiation beams. Comput. Programs Biomed. 2:1972;192-199.
6. Butts J.R., Foster A.E. Comparison of commercially available three-dimensional treatment planning algorithms for monitor unit calculations in the presence of heterogeneities. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2:2001;32-41.
7. Ellen M.M., Hogstrom K.R., Miller L.A., et al. A comparison of 18-MV and 6-MV treatment plans using 3D dose calculation with and without heterogeneity correction. Med. Dosim. 24:1999;287-294.
8. Tanner J.R. Measurement and comparison of prostate treatment dose to the femoral heads with 6-MV versus 10-MV photon energies. Med. Dosim. 24:1999;279-285.
9. Alaei P., Gerbi B.J., Geise R.A. Evaluation of a model-based treatment planning system for dose computations in the kilovoltage energy range. Med. Phys. 27:2000;2821-2826.
10. Abraham D., Colussi V., Shina D., et al. TBI treatment planning using the ADAC pinnacle treatment planning system. Med. Dosim. 25:2000;219-224.
11. Butson M.J., Elferink R., Cheung T., et al. Verification of lung dose in an anthropomorphic phantom calculated by the collapsed cone convolution method. Phys. Med. Biol. 45:2000;N143-149.
12. Francescon P., Cavedon C., Reccanello S., et al. Photon dose calculation of a three-dimensional treatment planning system compared to the Monte Carlo code BEAM. Med. Phys. 27:2000;1579-1587.
13. Piermattei A., Azario L., Delle Canne S., et al. Comparison between measured and computed absorbed dose values in the tangential treatment of the breast. Radiol. Med. (Torino). 93:1997;600-606.
14. Mackie T.R., Scrimger J.W., Battista J.J. A convolution method of calculating dose for 15-MV x-rays. Med. Phys. 12:1985;188-196.