The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Russell J Hamilton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confidence Limit variation for a single imrt system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2011Co-Authors: J D Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the robustness of TG119-based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119. All plans were delivered to a 30 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session-dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized film and an ionization chamber. Per-field measurements were collected using a diode array device at an effective depth of 5 cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the Confidence Limit values for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. The resulting Confidence Limits were 3.13%, 1.98%, 3.65%, and 4.39%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 8.06%, 13.4%, 9.30%, and 16.5%. Confidence Limits from per-field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119-based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations in the Confidence Limits between planners across all composite and per-field evaluations. This observed variation is likely due to the different levels of modulation between each planner’s set of plans. Performing the TG119 evaluation using plans produced by a single planner may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
-
tu e brb 04 Confidence Limit variation for a single system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2010Co-Authors: J Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of TG119‐based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods and Materials: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119 using iPlan RT Dose 4.1 software. All plans were delivered on a Varian 6EX to a 30×30×15cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session‐dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized EDR2 film and an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (sensitive volume of 0.056 cm3). Each film was developed and digitized immediately after exposure. Per‐field measurements were collected using a MapCHECK device at an effective depth of 5cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine quality assurance metrics for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. Resulting Confidence Limits were 3.77%, 1.98%, 4.50%, and 5.99%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 26.43%, 25.02%, 21.50%, and 56.58%. Using normalization to a film point rather than to ionization chamber, these Confidence Limits were reduced to 12.27%, 12.73%, 6.96%, and 15.75%. Confidence Limits from per‐field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119‐based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations across all composite and per‐field evaluations. Performing the TG119 evaluation a single time may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
Michelle Stevie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confidence Limit variation for a single imrt system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2011Co-Authors: J D Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the robustness of TG119-based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119. All plans were delivered to a 30 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session-dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized film and an ionization chamber. Per-field measurements were collected using a diode array device at an effective depth of 5 cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the Confidence Limit values for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. The resulting Confidence Limits were 3.13%, 1.98%, 3.65%, and 4.39%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 8.06%, 13.4%, 9.30%, and 16.5%. Confidence Limits from per-field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119-based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations in the Confidence Limits between planners across all composite and per-field evaluations. This observed variation is likely due to the different levels of modulation between each planner’s set of plans. Performing the TG119 evaluation using plans produced by a single planner may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
-
tu e brb 04 Confidence Limit variation for a single system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2010Co-Authors: J Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of TG119‐based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods and Materials: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119 using iPlan RT Dose 4.1 software. All plans were delivered on a Varian 6EX to a 30×30×15cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session‐dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized EDR2 film and an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (sensitive volume of 0.056 cm3). Each film was developed and digitized immediately after exposure. Per‐field measurements were collected using a MapCHECK device at an effective depth of 5cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine quality assurance metrics for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. Resulting Confidence Limits were 3.77%, 1.98%, 4.50%, and 5.99%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 26.43%, 25.02%, 21.50%, and 56.58%. Using normalization to a film point rather than to ionization chamber, these Confidence Limits were reduced to 12.27%, 12.73%, 6.96%, and 15.75%. Confidence Limits from per‐field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119‐based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations across all composite and per‐field evaluations. Performing the TG119 evaluation a single time may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
Shane P Krafft - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confidence Limit variation for a single imrt system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2011Co-Authors: J D Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the robustness of TG119-based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119. All plans were delivered to a 30 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session-dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized film and an ionization chamber. Per-field measurements were collected using a diode array device at an effective depth of 5 cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the Confidence Limit values for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. The resulting Confidence Limits were 3.13%, 1.98%, 3.65%, and 4.39%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 8.06%, 13.4%, 9.30%, and 16.5%. Confidence Limits from per-field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119-based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations in the Confidence Limits between planners across all composite and per-field evaluations. This observed variation is likely due to the different levels of modulation between each planner’s set of plans. Performing the TG119 evaluation using plans produced by a single planner may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
-
tu e brb 04 Confidence Limit variation for a single system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2010Co-Authors: J Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of TG119‐based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods and Materials: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119 using iPlan RT Dose 4.1 software. All plans were delivered on a Varian 6EX to a 30×30×15cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session‐dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized EDR2 film and an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (sensitive volume of 0.056 cm3). Each film was developed and digitized immediately after exposure. Per‐field measurements were collected using a MapCHECK device at an effective depth of 5cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine quality assurance metrics for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. Resulting Confidence Limits were 3.77%, 1.98%, 4.50%, and 5.99%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 26.43%, 25.02%, 21.50%, and 56.58%. Using normalization to a film point rather than to ionization chamber, these Confidence Limits were reduced to 12.27%, 12.73%, 6.96%, and 15.75%. Confidence Limits from per‐field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119‐based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations across all composite and per‐field evaluations. Performing the TG119 evaluation a single time may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
S Jang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confidence Limit variation for a single imrt system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2011Co-Authors: J D Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the robustness of TG119-based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119. All plans were delivered to a 30 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session-dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized film and an ionization chamber. Per-field measurements were collected using a diode array device at an effective depth of 5 cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the Confidence Limit values for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. The resulting Confidence Limits were 3.13%, 1.98%, 3.65%, and 4.39%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 8.06%, 13.4%, 9.30%, and 16.5%. Confidence Limits from per-field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119-based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations in the Confidence Limits between planners across all composite and per-field evaluations. This observed variation is likely due to the different levels of modulation between each planner’s set of plans. Performing the TG119 evaluation using plans produced by a single planner may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
-
tu e brb 04 Confidence Limit variation for a single system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2010Co-Authors: J Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of TG119‐based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods and Materials: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119 using iPlan RT Dose 4.1 software. All plans were delivered on a Varian 6EX to a 30×30×15cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session‐dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized EDR2 film and an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (sensitive volume of 0.056 cm3). Each film was developed and digitized immediately after exposure. Per‐field measurements were collected using a MapCHECK device at an effective depth of 5cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine quality assurance metrics for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. Resulting Confidence Limits were 3.77%, 1.98%, 4.50%, and 5.99%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 26.43%, 25.02%, 21.50%, and 56.58%. Using normalization to a film point rather than to ionization chamber, these Confidence Limits were reduced to 12.27%, 12.73%, 6.96%, and 15.75%. Confidence Limits from per‐field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119‐based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations across all composite and per‐field evaluations. Performing the TG119 evaluation a single time may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
Lexie Smithraymond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confidence Limit variation for a single imrt system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2011Co-Authors: J D Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the robustness of TG119-based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119. All plans were delivered to a 30 cm × 30 cm × 15 cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session-dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized film and an ionization chamber. Per-field measurements were collected using a diode array device at an effective depth of 5 cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the Confidence Limit values for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. The resulting Confidence Limits were 3.13%, 1.98%, 3.65%, and 4.39%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 8.06%, 13.4%, 9.30%, and 16.5%. Confidence Limits from per-field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119-based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations in the Confidence Limits between planners across all composite and per-field evaluations. This observed variation is likely due to the different levels of modulation between each planner’s set of plans. Performing the TG119 evaluation using plans produced by a single planner may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
-
tu e brb 04 Confidence Limit variation for a single system following the tg119 protocol
Medical Physics, 2010Co-Authors: J Gordon, Shane P Krafft, S Jang, Lexie Smithraymond, Michelle Stevie, Russell J HamiltonAbstract:Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of TG119‐based quality assurance metrics for an IMRT system. Methods and Materials: Four planners constructed treatment plans for the five IMRT test cases described in TG119 using iPlan RT Dose 4.1 software. All plans were delivered on a Varian 6EX to a 30×30×15cm solid water phantom in one treatment session in order to minimize session‐dependent variation from phantom setup, film quality, machine performance, etc. Composite measurements utilized EDR2 film and an Exradin A1SL ionization chamber (sensitive volume of 0.056 cm3). Each film was developed and digitized immediately after exposure. Per‐field measurements were collected using a MapCHECK device at an effective depth of 5cm. All data collected were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine quality assurance metrics for each planner separately and then compared. Results: The mean variance of ion chamber measurements for each planner was within 1.7% of the planned dose. Resulting Confidence Limits were 3.77%, 1.98%, 4.50%, and 5.99%. Confidence Limit values determined by composite film analysis were 26.43%, 25.02%, 21.50%, and 56.58%. Using normalization to a film point rather than to ionization chamber, these Confidence Limits were reduced to 12.27%, 12.73%, 6.96%, and 15.75%. Confidence Limits from per‐field measurements were 1.55%, 0.00%, 0.00%, and 2.89%. Conclusions: For a single IMRT system, the accuracy assessment provided by TG119‐based quality assurance metrics showed significant variations across all composite and per‐field evaluations. Performing the TG119 evaluation a single time may not provide an adequate estimation of IMRT system accuracy.
