Comparison of DVH data from multiple radiotherapy treatment planning systems

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 55, Issue 11, 2010, Pages

  Ebert, M A ^a,b   Haworth, A ^c,d   Kearvell, R ^a   Hooton, B ^a   Hug, B ^e   Spry, N A ^a,f   Bydder, S A ^a,b   Joseph, D J ^a,b  

^a SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^d RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CT SCAN; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; DOSE-VOLUME HISTOGRAMS; NEW ZEALAND; RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING; STRUCTURE SIZES; TARGET STRUCTURE; TREATMENT PLANS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; RADIOTHERAPY;

HEAT SHIELDING;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOTHERAPY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEW ZEALAND; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOMETRY; RADIOTHERAPY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AUSTRALIA; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEW ZEALAND; RADIOMETRY; RADIOTHERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY DOSAGE; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77952369053     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/11/N04     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ackerly T, Andrews J, Ball D, Guerrieri M, Healy B and Williams I 2003 Discrepancies in volume calculations between different radiotherapy treatment planning systems Aust. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 26 91-3
2. Baxter B S, Hitchner L E and Maguire G Q Jr 1982 A Standard Format for Digital Image Exchange (Madison, WI: AAPM)
3. Bedford J L, Childs P J, Nordmark Hansen V, Mosleh-Shirazi M A, Verhaegen F and Warrington A P 2003 Commissioning and quality assurance of the Pinnacle(3) radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons Br. J. Radiol. 76 163-76
4. Bentzen S M, Bernier J, Davis J B, Horiot J C, Garavaglia G, Chavaudra J, Johansson K A and Bolla M 2000 Clinical impact of dosimetry quality assurance programmes assessed by radiobiological modelling of data from the thermoluminescent dosimetry study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Eur. J. Cancer 36 615-20
5. Chen G T Y 1988 Dose volume histograms in treatment planning Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 14 1319-20
6. Chung H T, Jin H, Palta J, Suh T S and Kim S 2006 Dose variations with varying calculation grid size in head and neck IMRT Phys. Med. Biol. 51 4841-56
7. Deasy J O, Niemierko A, Herbert D, Yan D, Jackson A, Ten Haken R K, Langer M and Sapareto S 2002 Methodological issues in radiation dose-volume outcome analyses: summary of a joint AAPM/NIH workshop Med. Phys 29 2109-27
8. Ebert M A, Harrison K, Cornes D, Howlett S, Joseph D J, Kron T, Hamilton C S and Denham J W 2008a A comprehensive Australasian multi-centre dosimetric intercomparison-issues, logistics and recommendations J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 86 200-10
9. Ebert M A, Haworth A, Kearvell R, Hooton B, Coleman R, Spry N A, Bydder S and Joseph D J 2008b Detailed review and analysis of complex radiotherapy clinical trial planning data: evaluation and initial experience with the SWAN software system Radiother. Oncol. 86 200-10
10. Ebert M A, Howlett S J, Harrison K, Cornes D, Hamilton C S and Denham J W 2008c Linear-accelerator x-ray output: a multicentre chamber-based intercomparison study in Australia and New Zealand Aust. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 31 255-66
11. Hamilton C S and Ebert M A 2005 Volumetric uncertainty in radiotherapy Clin. Oncol. 17 456-64
12. ICRU 1999 Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiological Units)
13. Low D A, Harms W B, Mutic S and Purdy J A 1998 A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions Med. Phys. 25 656-61
14. Lu X Q and Chin L M 1993 Sampling techniques for the evaluation of treatment plans Med. Phys. 20 151-61
15. Mangili P, Stea L, Cattani F, Lappi S, Giglioli F, Calamia E, Ziglio F, Martinelli R and Longobardi B 2004 Comparative study of permanent interstitial prostate brachytherapy post-implant evaluation among seven Italian institutes Radiother. Oncol. 71 13-21
16. NEMA 2001 Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Standard (Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association)
17. Niemierko A and Goitein M 1990 Random sampling for evaluating treatment plans Med. Phys. 17 753-62
18. Panitsa E, Rosenwald J C and Kappas C 1998 Quality control of dose volume histogram computation characteristics of 3D treatment planning systems Phys. Med. Biol. 43 2807-16
19. Pettersen M N, Aird E and Olsen D R 2008 Quality assurance of dosimetry and the impact on sample size in randomized clinical trials Radiother. Oncol. 86 195-9
20. Sanchez-Nieto B and Nahum A E 1999 The delta-TCP concept: a clinically useful measure of tumor control probability Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 44 369-80
21. Shidong L, Arthur B, Yong L and George T Y C 1997 Analysis of the dose-surface histogram and dose-wall histogram for the rectum and bladder Med. Phys. 24 1107-16
22. Straube W, Mathews J, Bosch W R and Purdy J A 2005 DVH analysis: consequences for quality assurance of multi-institutional clinical trials Med. Phys. 32 2021-2
23. van t' Veld A A and Bruinvis I A 1995 Influence of shape on the accuracy of grid-based volume computations Med. Phys. 22 1377-85