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 Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiation Therapy for High-Grade Glioma in Pregnancy: Planning, Validation, and Adaptive Fetal Dose Monitoring.

Advances in radiation oncology·2026
Same author

Dose delivery accuracy of advanced radiotherapy: 30 years of end-to-end dosimetry audits.

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology·2026
Same author

Patient specific quality assurance: The final safety net in radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology·2026
Same author

Clinical commissioning of a novel compact multi-room pencil beam scanning proton therapy system.

Journal of applied clinical medical physics·2026
Same author

Reply to: Methodologic Considerations for Subsequent Colorectal Cancer in Survivors of Childhood Cancer.

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology·2026
Same author

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival in mantle cell lymphoma: a real-world cohort.

Frontiers in oncology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
05:18

Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant

Published on: October 6, 2023

2.1K

Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery.

Stephen F Kry1, Andrea Molineu1, James R Kerns2

  • 1Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston, Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
|December 3, 2014
PubMed
Summary

In-house intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) cannot reliably predict the results of external credentialing phantoms. This study found IMRT QA has poor sensitivity in detecting unacceptable treatment plans, indicating inconsistencies in the QA process.

More Related Videos

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
08:34

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies

Published on: February 6, 2019

21.3K
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
08:25

Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System

Published on: April 11, 2018

16.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
05:18

Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant

Published on: October 6, 2023

2.1K
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
08:34

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies

Published on: February 6, 2019

21.3K
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
08:25

Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System

Published on: April 11, 2018

16.2K

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Quality Assurance

Background:

  • Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex radiotherapy technique.
  • Quality assurance (QA) is crucial for ensuring treatment accuracy and patient safety.
  • External credentialing phantoms, like those from IROC-Houston, are used to validate institutional radiotherapy practices.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the predictive capability of in-house patient-specific IMRT QA for external IROC-Houston phantom results.
  • To determine the sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA in identifying unacceptable treatment plans compared to phantom outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of 855 IMRT irradiations between 2003 and 2013.
  • Comparison of in-house IMRT QA results with IROC-Houston head and neck phantom data.
  • Evaluation of IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods for sensitivity and specificity.

Main Results:

  • In-house IMRT QA demonstrated universally poor sensitivity in predicting failing IROC-Houston phantom results (2%-18% overall).
  • Sensitivity varied by IMRT QA method (3%-54%), but no threshold achieved good sensitivity and specificity.
  • Poor agreement highlights inconsistencies in institutional IMRT QA processes.

Conclusions:

  • In-house IMRT QA is not a suitable substitute for credentialing phantoms.
  • Significant discrepancies between IMRT QA and phantom results indicate a need for improved QA consistency.
  • Findings underscore the importance of external audits for radiotherapy quality assurance.