A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy

•Clarkson-based dose calculation verification is common for secondary plan checks.•There have been few reports on the verification of large cohorts of patients.•A total of 5936 fields were collected and analyzed in a multi-institutional study.•A 3–5% limit may be feasible as an action level per our...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physica medica 2018-05, Vol.49, p.19-27
Hauptverfasser: Takahashi, Ryo, Kamima, Tatsuya, Itano, Masanobu, Yamazaki, Takeshi, Ishibashi, Satoru, Higuchi, Yoshihiro, Shimizu, Hiroyuki, Yamamoto, Toshijiro, Yamashita, Mikiko, Baba, Hiromi, Sugawara, Yasuharu, Sato, Aya, Nishiyama, Shiro, Kawai, Daisuke, Miyaoka, Satoshi, Tachibana, Hidenobu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 27
container_issue
container_start_page 19
container_title Physica medica
container_volume 49
creator Takahashi, Ryo
Kamima, Tatsuya
Itano, Masanobu
Yamazaki, Takeshi
Ishibashi, Satoru
Higuchi, Yoshihiro
Shimizu, Hiroyuki
Yamamoto, Toshijiro
Yamashita, Mikiko
Baba, Hiromi
Sugawara, Yasuharu
Sato, Aya
Nishiyama, Shiro
Kawai, Daisuke
Miyaoka, Satoshi
Tachibana, Hidenobu
description •Clarkson-based dose calculation verification is common for secondary plan checks.•There have been few reports on the verification of large cohorts of patients.•A total of 5936 fields were collected and analyzed in a multi-institutional study.•A 3–5% limit may be feasible as an action level per our quantitative analysis.•Care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level. As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3–5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. Mean ± two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ± 3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ± 4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ± 5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ± 5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2050487885</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1120179718304538</els_id><sourcerecordid>2050487885</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-1f870f17263ee7aa1446f24f3c05b0a43d3ed15b98adc87b42f255dbbbda3d253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcuO1DAQtBCIXRZ-gAPykUuCX0kcictqtDyklbiAxM1y7Dbj2cQOtoM0H8E_42gWjly6W62qalUXQq8paSmh_btTC6dlbRmhsiWi5aN4gq7pwERDR_r9aZ0pIw0dxuEKvcj5RAhnrOueoys2yr7nXF6j37d42ebiGx9y8WUrPgY941w2e8bR4QwmBqvTGZsjmId9VRLoskAoeJ11CD78wFve62HW6SHH0Ew6g8U2ZsBGz2ab9S6LXUy4HBNAY33l58uppK2P5QhJr-eX6JnTc4ZXj_0Gfftw9_Xwqbn_8vHz4fa-MYKx0lAnB-Kq054DDFpTIXrHhOOGdBPRglsOlnbTKLU1cpgEc9W3nabJam5Zx2_Q24vumuLPDXJRi88G5uoH4pYVIx0RcpByh7IL1KSYcwKn1uSX-hBFidpjUCe1x6D2GBQRqsZQSW8e9bdpAfuP8vfvFfD-AoDq8peHpLLxEAxYn8AUZaP_n_4f5cSdng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2050487885</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy</title><source>ScienceDirect</source><creator>Takahashi, Ryo ; Kamima, Tatsuya ; Itano, Masanobu ; Yamazaki, Takeshi ; Ishibashi, Satoru ; Higuchi, Yoshihiro ; Shimizu, Hiroyuki ; Yamamoto, Toshijiro ; Yamashita, Mikiko ; Baba, Hiromi ; Sugawara, Yasuharu ; Sato, Aya ; Nishiyama, Shiro ; Kawai, Daisuke ; Miyaoka, Satoshi ; Tachibana, Hidenobu</creator><creatorcontrib>Takahashi, Ryo ; Kamima, Tatsuya ; Itano, Masanobu ; Yamazaki, Takeshi ; Ishibashi, Satoru ; Higuchi, Yoshihiro ; Shimizu, Hiroyuki ; Yamamoto, Toshijiro ; Yamashita, Mikiko ; Baba, Hiromi ; Sugawara, Yasuharu ; Sato, Aya ; Nishiyama, Shiro ; Kawai, Daisuke ; Miyaoka, Satoshi ; Tachibana, Hidenobu</creatorcontrib><description>•Clarkson-based dose calculation verification is common for secondary plan checks.•There have been few reports on the verification of large cohorts of patients.•A total of 5936 fields were collected and analyzed in a multi-institutional study.•A 3–5% limit may be feasible as an action level per our quantitative analysis.•Care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level. As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3–5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. Mean ± two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ± 3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ± 4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ± 5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ± 5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1120-1797</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1724-191X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29866338</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Italy: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Independent calculation verification ; Institution-specific tolerance ; Monitor units ; Multi-institutional comparison ; Quality assurance</subject><ispartof>Physica medica, 2018-05, Vol.49, p.19-27</ispartof><rights>2018 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-1f870f17263ee7aa1446f24f3c05b0a43d3ed15b98adc87b42f255dbbbda3d253</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-1f870f17263ee7aa1446f24f3c05b0a43d3ed15b98adc87b42f255dbbbda3d253</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866338$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Takahashi, Ryo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamima, Tatsuya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Itano, Masanobu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamazaki, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishibashi, Satoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higuchi, Yoshihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimizu, Hiroyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Toshijiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamashita, Mikiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baba, Hiromi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugawara, Yasuharu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Aya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Shiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kawai, Daisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miyaoka, Satoshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tachibana, Hidenobu</creatorcontrib><title>A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy</title><title>Physica medica</title><addtitle>Phys Med</addtitle><description>•Clarkson-based dose calculation verification is common for secondary plan checks.•There have been few reports on the verification of large cohorts of patients.•A total of 5936 fields were collected and analyzed in a multi-institutional study.•A 3–5% limit may be feasible as an action level per our quantitative analysis.•Care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level. As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3–5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. Mean ± two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ± 3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ± 4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ± 5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ± 5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.</description><subject>Independent calculation verification</subject><subject>Institution-specific tolerance</subject><subject>Monitor units</subject><subject>Multi-institutional comparison</subject><subject>Quality assurance</subject><issn>1120-1797</issn><issn>1724-191X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UcuO1DAQtBCIXRZ-gAPykUuCX0kcictqtDyklbiAxM1y7Dbj2cQOtoM0H8E_42gWjly6W62qalUXQq8paSmh_btTC6dlbRmhsiWi5aN4gq7pwERDR_r9aZ0pIw0dxuEKvcj5RAhnrOueoys2yr7nXF6j37d42ebiGx9y8WUrPgY941w2e8bR4QwmBqvTGZsjmId9VRLoskAoeJ11CD78wFve62HW6SHH0Ew6g8U2ZsBGz2ab9S6LXUy4HBNAY33l58uppK2P5QhJr-eX6JnTc4ZXj_0Gfftw9_Xwqbn_8vHz4fa-MYKx0lAnB-Kq054DDFpTIXrHhOOGdBPRglsOlnbTKLU1cpgEc9W3nabJam5Zx2_Q24vumuLPDXJRi88G5uoH4pYVIx0RcpByh7IL1KSYcwKn1uSX-hBFidpjUCe1x6D2GBQRqsZQSW8e9bdpAfuP8vfvFfD-AoDq8peHpLLxEAxYn8AUZaP_n_4f5cSdng</recordid><startdate>201805</startdate><enddate>201805</enddate><creator>Takahashi, Ryo</creator><creator>Kamima, Tatsuya</creator><creator>Itano, Masanobu</creator><creator>Yamazaki, Takeshi</creator><creator>Ishibashi, Satoru</creator><creator>Higuchi, Yoshihiro</creator><creator>Shimizu, Hiroyuki</creator><creator>Yamamoto, Toshijiro</creator><creator>Yamashita, Mikiko</creator><creator>Baba, Hiromi</creator><creator>Sugawara, Yasuharu</creator><creator>Sato, Aya</creator><creator>Nishiyama, Shiro</creator><creator>Kawai, Daisuke</creator><creator>Miyaoka, Satoshi</creator><creator>Tachibana, Hidenobu</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201805</creationdate><title>A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy</title><author>Takahashi, Ryo ; Kamima, Tatsuya ; Itano, Masanobu ; Yamazaki, Takeshi ; Ishibashi, Satoru ; Higuchi, Yoshihiro ; Shimizu, Hiroyuki ; Yamamoto, Toshijiro ; Yamashita, Mikiko ; Baba, Hiromi ; Sugawara, Yasuharu ; Sato, Aya ; Nishiyama, Shiro ; Kawai, Daisuke ; Miyaoka, Satoshi ; Tachibana, Hidenobu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-1f870f17263ee7aa1446f24f3c05b0a43d3ed15b98adc87b42f255dbbbda3d253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Independent calculation verification</topic><topic>Institution-specific tolerance</topic><topic>Monitor units</topic><topic>Multi-institutional comparison</topic><topic>Quality assurance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Takahashi, Ryo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamima, Tatsuya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Itano, Masanobu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamazaki, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishibashi, Satoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higuchi, Yoshihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimizu, Hiroyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Toshijiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamashita, Mikiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baba, Hiromi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugawara, Yasuharu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Aya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Shiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kawai, Daisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miyaoka, Satoshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tachibana, Hidenobu</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Physica medica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Takahashi, Ryo</au><au>Kamima, Tatsuya</au><au>Itano, Masanobu</au><au>Yamazaki, Takeshi</au><au>Ishibashi, Satoru</au><au>Higuchi, Yoshihiro</au><au>Shimizu, Hiroyuki</au><au>Yamamoto, Toshijiro</au><au>Yamashita, Mikiko</au><au>Baba, Hiromi</au><au>Sugawara, Yasuharu</au><au>Sato, Aya</au><au>Nishiyama, Shiro</au><au>Kawai, Daisuke</au><au>Miyaoka, Satoshi</au><au>Tachibana, Hidenobu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy</atitle><jtitle>Physica medica</jtitle><addtitle>Phys Med</addtitle><date>2018-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>49</volume><spage>19</spage><epage>27</epage><pages>19-27</pages><issn>1120-1797</issn><eissn>1724-191X</eissn><abstract>•Clarkson-based dose calculation verification is common for secondary plan checks.•There have been few reports on the verification of large cohorts of patients.•A total of 5936 fields were collected and analyzed in a multi-institutional study.•A 3–5% limit may be feasible as an action level per our quantitative analysis.•Care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level. As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3–5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. Mean ± two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ± 3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ± 4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ± 5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ± 5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.</abstract><cop>Italy</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>29866338</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1120-1797
ispartof Physica medica, 2018-05, Vol.49, p.19-27
issn 1120-1797
1724-191X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2050487885
source ScienceDirect
subjects Independent calculation verification
Institution-specific tolerance
Monitor units
Multi-institutional comparison
Quality assurance
title A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T18%3A37%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20multi-institutional%20study%20of%20secondary%20check%20of%20treatment%20planning%20using%20Clarkson-based%20dose%20calculation%20for%20three-dimensional%20radiotherapy&rft.jtitle=Physica%20medica&rft.au=Takahashi,%20Ryo&rft.date=2018-05&rft.volume=49&rft.spage=19&rft.epage=27&rft.pages=19-27&rft.issn=1120-1797&rft.eissn=1724-191X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2050487885%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2050487885&rft_id=info:pmid/29866338&rft_els_id=S1120179718304538&rfr_iscdi=true