SU‐GG‐J‐16: Impacting Parameter Analysis for IMRT Quality

Huanmei Wu, M. Cao, Q. Zhao, I. Das

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) accurately delivers radiation doses with high degree of conformity by modulating the intensity of the radiation beam in multiple small segments. Usually small fields have large variation in dose. For some TPS, there are no restrictions on plan parameters. Guideline for plan optimization is needed that allows the IMRT QA to pass satisfactorily. IMRT plan parameters are analyzed to correlate the success and failure of an IMRT QA plan. Materials and Methods: Based on IMRT QA results, 15 IMRT treatment plans, divided into 3 groups, are studies. Plans in group 1 passed IMRT QA with high gamma index passing rates and plan in group 2 passed with marginal passing rates. Plans in group 3 failed the IMRT QA. Statistical analysis has been performed on plan parameters, including beam number, segment number for each beam, MU in total or for each segment, the width variations of the leaf/jaw positions for each segment, the segment area sizes, and dose delivery for different segments of each beam, to discover the relationships between IMRT quality and these parameters. Results: The statistical results showed there is no correlation between plan quality and MU or beam/segment numbers. However, there are noticeable correlations between the IMRT quality and the segment sizes and widths. For each plan group, the IMRT quality decreased with the decreasing field sizes and segment widths. The histograms of these factors showed that failed IMRT plans have peak distributions with small field sizes (< 30cm2) and narrow widths (<20mm). Conclusion: Initial results showed that the passing rates of IMRT treatment plans have strong correlation with the segment field sizes and the opening widths of the leaf/jaw positions. Large number of segments with small fields produces unacceptable IMRT QA and should be avoided during IMRT planning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

Fingerprint

Radiotherapy
Jaw
Radiation
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐GG‐J‐16 : Impacting Parameter Analysis for IMRT Quality. / Wu, Huanmei; Cao, M.; Zhao, Q.; Das, I.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 6, 01.01.2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wu, Huanmei ; Cao, M. ; Zhao, Q. ; Das, I. / SU‐GG‐J‐16 : Impacting Parameter Analysis for IMRT Quality. In: Medical Physics. 2010 ; Vol. 37, No. 6.
@article{86ee3bf0343b4d68958f9f36409e9df6,
title = "SU‐GG‐J‐16: Impacting Parameter Analysis for IMRT Quality",
abstract = "Introduction: Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) accurately delivers radiation doses with high degree of conformity by modulating the intensity of the radiation beam in multiple small segments. Usually small fields have large variation in dose. For some TPS, there are no restrictions on plan parameters. Guideline for plan optimization is needed that allows the IMRT QA to pass satisfactorily. IMRT plan parameters are analyzed to correlate the success and failure of an IMRT QA plan. Materials and Methods: Based on IMRT QA results, 15 IMRT treatment plans, divided into 3 groups, are studies. Plans in group 1 passed IMRT QA with high gamma index passing rates and plan in group 2 passed with marginal passing rates. Plans in group 3 failed the IMRT QA. Statistical analysis has been performed on plan parameters, including beam number, segment number for each beam, MU in total or for each segment, the width variations of the leaf/jaw positions for each segment, the segment area sizes, and dose delivery for different segments of each beam, to discover the relationships between IMRT quality and these parameters. Results: The statistical results showed there is no correlation between plan quality and MU or beam/segment numbers. However, there are noticeable correlations between the IMRT quality and the segment sizes and widths. For each plan group, the IMRT quality decreased with the decreasing field sizes and segment widths. The histograms of these factors showed that failed IMRT plans have peak distributions with small field sizes (< 30cm2) and narrow widths (<20mm). Conclusion: Initial results showed that the passing rates of IMRT treatment plans have strong correlation with the segment field sizes and the opening widths of the leaf/jaw positions. Large number of segments with small fields produces unacceptable IMRT QA and should be avoided during IMRT planning.",
author = "Huanmei Wu and M. Cao and Q. Zhao and I. Das",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.3468239",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐J‐16

T2 - Impacting Parameter Analysis for IMRT Quality

AU - Wu, Huanmei

AU - Cao, M.

AU - Zhao, Q.

AU - Das, I.

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Introduction: Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) accurately delivers radiation doses with high degree of conformity by modulating the intensity of the radiation beam in multiple small segments. Usually small fields have large variation in dose. For some TPS, there are no restrictions on plan parameters. Guideline for plan optimization is needed that allows the IMRT QA to pass satisfactorily. IMRT plan parameters are analyzed to correlate the success and failure of an IMRT QA plan. Materials and Methods: Based on IMRT QA results, 15 IMRT treatment plans, divided into 3 groups, are studies. Plans in group 1 passed IMRT QA with high gamma index passing rates and plan in group 2 passed with marginal passing rates. Plans in group 3 failed the IMRT QA. Statistical analysis has been performed on plan parameters, including beam number, segment number for each beam, MU in total or for each segment, the width variations of the leaf/jaw positions for each segment, the segment area sizes, and dose delivery for different segments of each beam, to discover the relationships between IMRT quality and these parameters. Results: The statistical results showed there is no correlation between plan quality and MU or beam/segment numbers. However, there are noticeable correlations between the IMRT quality and the segment sizes and widths. For each plan group, the IMRT quality decreased with the decreasing field sizes and segment widths. The histograms of these factors showed that failed IMRT plans have peak distributions with small field sizes (< 30cm2) and narrow widths (<20mm). Conclusion: Initial results showed that the passing rates of IMRT treatment plans have strong correlation with the segment field sizes and the opening widths of the leaf/jaw positions. Large number of segments with small fields produces unacceptable IMRT QA and should be avoided during IMRT planning.

AB - Introduction: Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) accurately delivers radiation doses with high degree of conformity by modulating the intensity of the radiation beam in multiple small segments. Usually small fields have large variation in dose. For some TPS, there are no restrictions on plan parameters. Guideline for plan optimization is needed that allows the IMRT QA to pass satisfactorily. IMRT plan parameters are analyzed to correlate the success and failure of an IMRT QA plan. Materials and Methods: Based on IMRT QA results, 15 IMRT treatment plans, divided into 3 groups, are studies. Plans in group 1 passed IMRT QA with high gamma index passing rates and plan in group 2 passed with marginal passing rates. Plans in group 3 failed the IMRT QA. Statistical analysis has been performed on plan parameters, including beam number, segment number for each beam, MU in total or for each segment, the width variations of the leaf/jaw positions for each segment, the segment area sizes, and dose delivery for different segments of each beam, to discover the relationships between IMRT quality and these parameters. Results: The statistical results showed there is no correlation between plan quality and MU or beam/segment numbers. However, there are noticeable correlations between the IMRT quality and the segment sizes and widths. For each plan group, the IMRT quality decreased with the decreasing field sizes and segment widths. The histograms of these factors showed that failed IMRT plans have peak distributions with small field sizes (< 30cm2) and narrow widths (<20mm). Conclusion: Initial results showed that the passing rates of IMRT treatment plans have strong correlation with the segment field sizes and the opening widths of the leaf/jaw positions. Large number of segments with small fields produces unacceptable IMRT QA and should be avoided during IMRT planning.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024774475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024774475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3468239

DO - 10.1118/1.3468239

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024774475

VL - 37

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -