SU‐E‐T‐258: Commissioning of a Commercial Treatment Planning System Verification Software Package

C. Nelson, S. Davidson, B. Mason, S. Kirsner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: A commercial software package (Mobius3d, Mobius Medical Systems) was acquired for use as an additional QA tool of our current treatment planning system (TPS). The system reads DICOM RT files generated from the TPS and performs an independent dose calculation for comparison to the TPS. This work summarizes our methods for commissioning a system such as this. Methods: Preliminary comparisons of our TPS and measured data to the QA softwares beam model were done by comparing PDDs and profiles with field sizes ranging from 4×;4 to 40×40. Static fields and step and shoot IMRT plans were generated on a homogeneous medium for comparisons of 6x photons. For the homogeneous IMRT cases, ion chamber measurements were compared to the dose calculated in the TPS and in the verification system. Results: Analysis of PDD data showed that the average PDD error of the verification model (relative to the TPS) was 0.5% compared to our measured data which was 0.1%. The average infield profile error over all field sizes and depths of the TPS to our reference measured data set was 0.3% whereas the verification system relative to the TPS was 1.7%. Simple beam geometries between the TPS and the verification system were 0.8% difference on average. Ion chamber measurements on a homogeneous phantom differed from the TPS on average by 0.5% whereas the verification system was 2%. The results indicate an adjustment in the beam model of the verification system is needed to better match our current beam model/measured data. Conclusion: Preliminary commissioning results of a commercial QA dose algorithm were completed. Adjustment of the verification softwares beam model is necessary before further testing is done. Further analysis is needed to fully investigate this system to be used clinically as a QA tool of our current TPS. “Evaluation equipment provided by Mobius Medical Systems, LP”.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-264
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Software Validation
Software
Ions
Photons
Information Systems
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐258 : Commissioning of a Commercial Treatment Planning System Verification Software Package. / Nelson, C.; Davidson, S.; Mason, B.; Kirsner, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 263-264.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nelson, C. ; Davidson, S. ; Mason, B. ; Kirsner, S. / SU‐E‐T‐258 : Commissioning of a Commercial Treatment Planning System Verification Software Package. In: Medical Physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 263-264.
@article{42be4ad323c94ddf812a97291888245c,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐258: Commissioning of a Commercial Treatment Planning System Verification Software Package",
abstract = "Purpose: A commercial software package (Mobius3d, Mobius Medical Systems) was acquired for use as an additional QA tool of our current treatment planning system (TPS). The system reads DICOM RT files generated from the TPS and performs an independent dose calculation for comparison to the TPS. This work summarizes our methods for commissioning a system such as this. Methods: Preliminary comparisons of our TPS and measured data to the QA softwares beam model were done by comparing PDDs and profiles with field sizes ranging from 4×;4 to 40×40. Static fields and step and shoot IMRT plans were generated on a homogeneous medium for comparisons of 6x photons. For the homogeneous IMRT cases, ion chamber measurements were compared to the dose calculated in the TPS and in the verification system. Results: Analysis of PDD data showed that the average PDD error of the verification model (relative to the TPS) was 0.5{\%} compared to our measured data which was 0.1{\%}. The average infield profile error over all field sizes and depths of the TPS to our reference measured data set was 0.3{\%} whereas the verification system relative to the TPS was 1.7{\%}. Simple beam geometries between the TPS and the verification system were 0.8{\%} difference on average. Ion chamber measurements on a homogeneous phantom differed from the TPS on average by 0.5{\%} whereas the verification system was 2{\%}. The results indicate an adjustment in the beam model of the verification system is needed to better match our current beam model/measured data. Conclusion: Preliminary commissioning results of a commercial QA dose algorithm were completed. Adjustment of the verification softwares beam model is necessary before further testing is done. Further analysis is needed to fully investigate this system to be used clinically as a QA tool of our current TPS. “Evaluation equipment provided by Mobius Medical Systems, LP”.",
author = "C. Nelson and S. Davidson and B. Mason and S. Kirsner",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814693",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "263--264",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐258

T2 - Commissioning of a Commercial Treatment Planning System Verification Software Package

AU - Nelson, C.

AU - Davidson, S.

AU - Mason, B.

AU - Kirsner, S.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: A commercial software package (Mobius3d, Mobius Medical Systems) was acquired for use as an additional QA tool of our current treatment planning system (TPS). The system reads DICOM RT files generated from the TPS and performs an independent dose calculation for comparison to the TPS. This work summarizes our methods for commissioning a system such as this. Methods: Preliminary comparisons of our TPS and measured data to the QA softwares beam model were done by comparing PDDs and profiles with field sizes ranging from 4×;4 to 40×40. Static fields and step and shoot IMRT plans were generated on a homogeneous medium for comparisons of 6x photons. For the homogeneous IMRT cases, ion chamber measurements were compared to the dose calculated in the TPS and in the verification system. Results: Analysis of PDD data showed that the average PDD error of the verification model (relative to the TPS) was 0.5% compared to our measured data which was 0.1%. The average infield profile error over all field sizes and depths of the TPS to our reference measured data set was 0.3% whereas the verification system relative to the TPS was 1.7%. Simple beam geometries between the TPS and the verification system were 0.8% difference on average. Ion chamber measurements on a homogeneous phantom differed from the TPS on average by 0.5% whereas the verification system was 2%. The results indicate an adjustment in the beam model of the verification system is needed to better match our current beam model/measured data. Conclusion: Preliminary commissioning results of a commercial QA dose algorithm were completed. Adjustment of the verification softwares beam model is necessary before further testing is done. Further analysis is needed to fully investigate this system to be used clinically as a QA tool of our current TPS. “Evaluation equipment provided by Mobius Medical Systems, LP”.

AB - Purpose: A commercial software package (Mobius3d, Mobius Medical Systems) was acquired for use as an additional QA tool of our current treatment planning system (TPS). The system reads DICOM RT files generated from the TPS and performs an independent dose calculation for comparison to the TPS. This work summarizes our methods for commissioning a system such as this. Methods: Preliminary comparisons of our TPS and measured data to the QA softwares beam model were done by comparing PDDs and profiles with field sizes ranging from 4×;4 to 40×40. Static fields and step and shoot IMRT plans were generated on a homogeneous medium for comparisons of 6x photons. For the homogeneous IMRT cases, ion chamber measurements were compared to the dose calculated in the TPS and in the verification system. Results: Analysis of PDD data showed that the average PDD error of the verification model (relative to the TPS) was 0.5% compared to our measured data which was 0.1%. The average infield profile error over all field sizes and depths of the TPS to our reference measured data set was 0.3% whereas the verification system relative to the TPS was 1.7%. Simple beam geometries between the TPS and the verification system were 0.8% difference on average. Ion chamber measurements on a homogeneous phantom differed from the TPS on average by 0.5% whereas the verification system was 2%. The results indicate an adjustment in the beam model of the verification system is needed to better match our current beam model/measured data. Conclusion: Preliminary commissioning results of a commercial QA dose algorithm were completed. Adjustment of the verification softwares beam model is necessary before further testing is done. Further analysis is needed to fully investigate this system to be used clinically as a QA tool of our current TPS. “Evaluation equipment provided by Mobius Medical Systems, LP”.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013048439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013048439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814693

DO - 10.1118/1.4814693

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85013048439

VL - 40

SP - 263

EP - 264

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -