Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Kry, Stephen F. ♦ Molineu, Andrea ♦ Kerns, James R. ♦ Faught, Austin M. ♦ Huang, Jessie Y. ♦ Pulliam, Kiley B. ♦ Tonigan, Jackie ♦ Alvarez, Paola ♦ Stingo, Francesco ♦ Followill, David S.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ♦ BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY ♦ CLINICAL TRIALS ♦ COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS ♦ DOSEMETERS ♦ HEAD ♦ NECK ♦ PATIENTS ♦ PHANTOMS ♦ QUALITY ASSURANCE ♦ RADIOTHERAPY ♦ SPECIFICITY
Abstract Purpose: To determine whether in-house patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) results predict Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC)-Houston phantom results. Methods and Materials: IROC Houston's IMRT head and neck phantoms have been irradiated by numerous institutions as part of clinical trial credentialing. We retrospectively compared these phantom results with those of in-house IMRT QA (following the institution's clinical process) for 855 irradiations performed between 2003 and 2013. The sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA to detect unacceptable or acceptable plans were determined relative to the IROC Houston phantom results. Additional analyses evaluated specific IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods. Results: IMRT QA universally showed poor sensitivity relative to the head and neck phantom, that is, poor ability to predict a failing IROC Houston phantom result. Depending on how the IMRT QA results were interpreted, overall sensitivity ranged from 2% to 18%. For different IMRT QA methods, sensitivity ranged from 3% to 54%. Although the observed sensitivity was particularly poor at clinical thresholds (eg 3% dose difference or 90% of pixels passing gamma), receiver operator characteristic analysis indicated that no threshold showed good sensitivity and specificity for the devices evaluated. Conclusions: IMRT QA is not a reasonable replacement for a credentialing phantom. Moreover, the particularly poor agreement between IMRT QA and the IROC Houston phantoms highlights surprising inconsistency in the QA process.
ISSN 03603016
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2014-12-01
Publisher Place United States
Journal International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Volume Number 90
Issue Number 5


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab