Quality assurance: fundamental reproducibility tests for 3-D treatment-planning systems

Design and clinical implementation of a TG-106 compliant linear accelerator data management system and MU calculator

In an attempt to minimize errors and improve patient outcome in radiation therapy, a linear accelerator data management system was developed to provide radiation oncology physicists with a set of computerized tools to manage linear accelerator physics data. The entire program is written in Microsoft Visual Basic and has a user-friendly, front-end window with the following features and modules: (1) Generate, edit and approve commissioning and QA reports and other regulatory documents, (2) Configure commissioning tasks, (3) Acquire output factors, (4) Import scanned data, (5) Import PDD, TMRs and OAR tables directly from the scanning software, (6) Query physics data such as TMR, PDDs, OFs, and WFs, (7) Compare physics data to a different machine or a standard, (8) Compare physics data from the same machine (e.g. during annual calibrations), (9) Perform MU calculations on plans exported from the planning system via DICOM RT, (10) Perform TG-51 calibration, (11) Perform monthly calibration, (12) FTP physics data for purposes of remote peer review and/or inspections.

Application of a 3D volumetric display for radiation therapy treatment planning I: quality assurance procedures

To design and implement a set of quality assurance tests for an innovative 3D volumetric display for radiation treatment planning applications. A genuine 3D display (Perspecta Spatial 3D, Actuality‐Systems Inc., Bedford, MA) has been integrated with the Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical Systems, Madison WI), for treatment planning. The Perspecta 3D display renders a 25 cm diameter volume that is viewable from any side, floating within a translucent dome. In addition to displaying all 3D data exported from Pinnacle, the system provides a 3D mouse to define beam angles and apertures and to measure distance. The focus of this work is the design and implementation of a quality assurance program for 3D displays and specific 3D planning issues as guided by AAPM Task Group Report 53. A series of acceptance and quality assurance tests have been designed to evaluate the accuracy of CT images, contours, beams, and dose distributions as displayed on Perspecta. Three‐dimensional matrices, rulers and phantoms with known spatial dimensions were used to check Perspecta's absolute spatial accuracy. In addition, a system of tests was designed to confirm Perspecta's ability to import and display Pinnacle data consistently. CT scans of phantoms were used to confirm beam field size, divergence, and gantry and couch angular accuracy as displayed on Perspecta. Beam angles were verified through Cartesian coordinate system measurements and by CT scans of phantoms rotated at known angles. Beams designed on Perspecta were exported to Pinnacle and checked for accuracy. Dose at sampled points were checked for consistency with Pinnacle and agreed within 1% or 1 mm. All data exported from Pinnacle to Perspecta was displayed consistently. The 3D spatial display of images, contours, and dose distributions were consistent with Pinnacle display. When measured by the 3D ruler, the distances between any two points calculated using Perspecta agreed with Pinnacle within the measurement error

PACS number: 07.07.Hj, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Da, 87.55.D‐; Radiation Treatment Planning