| Title |
Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Physics, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/mp.12810 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Moyed Miften, Arthur Olch, Dimitris Mihailidis, Jean Moran, Todd Pawlicki, Andrea Molineu, Harold Li, Krishni Wijesooriya, Jie Shi, Ping Xia, Nikos Papanikolaou, Daniel A. Low |
| Abstract |
Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 43% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 52% |
| Scientists | 8 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 701 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 701 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 96 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 91 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 75 | 11% |
| Other | 74 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 4% |
| Other | 106 | 15% |
| Unknown | 229 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 220 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 125 | 18% |
| Engineering | 27 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 7 | <1% |
| Other | 36 | 5% |
| Unknown | 260 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,530,361
of 25,450,869 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#156
of 7,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,344
of 346,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#3
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,450,869 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,986 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.