Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis.

Benjamin E Nelms1, Jeff A Simon2

  • 1Canis Lupus LLC, Merrimac, Wisconsin.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
|August 23, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Associations Between Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors and Segmentation Similarity Benchmarks: Insights From a Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

JCO clinical cancer informatics·2024
Same author

Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2023
Same author

Large scale crowdsourced radiotherapy segmentations across a variety of cancer anatomic sites.

Scientific data·2023
Same author

<i>E pluribus unum:</i> prospective acceptability benchmarking from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology crowdsourced initiative for multiobserver segmentation.

Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)·2023
Same author

Anatomical contouring variability in thoracic organs at risk.

Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists·2016
Same author

Technical Note: Motion-perturbation method applied to dosimetry of dynamic MLC target tracking--A proof-of-concept.

Medical physics·2015
Same journal

Efficient low-dose CT image enhancement using MobileMamba-UNet with wavelet-enhanced long-range modeling.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same journal

Same-day Hyaluronic Acid rectal spacer for TRUS-guided HDR Prostate Brachytherapy: Feasibility and dosimetric outcomes.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same journal

Human-like AI-based auto-field-in-field whole-brain radiotherapy treatment planning with conversation large language model feedback.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same journal

AI-surrogate structure and dose correlation for left anterior descending artery in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same journal

Evaluating the correlation between pediatric exposure rates and common body size surrogates in fluoroscopy.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same journal

Clinical application of an unshielded silicon diode detector for relative electron beam dosimetry.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
See all related articles

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) methods vary widely across institutions. A survey revealed inconsistent adoption of analysis techniques and acceptance criteria, highlighting the need for standardized IMRT QA protocols.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Quality Assurance

Background:

  • Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) is crucial in modern radiation oncology.
  • Lack of formalized industry standards leads to institutional variations in IMRT QA methods.
  • Understanding current practices is essential for improving IMRT QA effectiveness and developing standards.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To survey current IMRT QA analysis methods used by institutions.
  • To identify common practices and variations in IMRT QA procedures.
  • To inform the development of standardized IMRT QA protocols.

Main Methods:

  • An online survey was conducted among institutions using electronic two-dimensional diode array devices for IMRT QA.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Questions focused on general IMRT QA analysis methods, avoiding vendor-specific details.
  • Survey data was collected from one institution per survey.

    • Main Results:

    • A significant portion (32.8%) of institutions use the single-gantry-angle composite method for IMRT QA analysis.
    • Most institutions prefer absolute dose comparisons (3% criterion) over relative comparisons.
    • Many institutions lack established acceptance testing benchmarks for prostate, head and neck, and breast IMRT.

    Conclusions:

    • Current IMRT QA practices exhibit considerable variation in analysis methods and acceptance criteria.
    • Standardized acceptance testing benchmarks are not yet widely adopted across institutions.
    • Further research is needed to correlate planar QA analyses with clinical outcomes, such as dose-volume histogram deviations, before defining universal standards.