Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClark, Catharine H
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Vibeke Nordmark
dc.contributor.authorChantler, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Craig
dc.contributor.authorJames, Hayley V
dc.contributor.authorWebster, Gareth J
dc.contributor.authorMiles, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero Urbano, M Teresa
dc.contributor.authorBhide, Shree A
dc.contributor.authorBidmead, A Margaret
dc.contributor.authorNutting, Christoper M
dc.date.accessioned2010-08-09T12:27:29Z
dc.date.available2010-08-09T12:27:29Z
dc.date.issued2009-10
dc.identifier.citationDosimetry audit for a multi-centre IMRT head and neck trial. 2009, 93 (1):102-8 Radiother Oncolen
dc.identifier.issn1879-0887
dc.identifier.pmid19596158
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.radonc.2009.04.025
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/109285
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PARSPORT was a multi-centre randomised trial in the UK which compared Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for patients with head and neck cancer. The dosimetry audit goals were to verify the plan delivery in participating centres, ascertain what tolerances were suitable for head and neck IMRT trials and develop an IMRT credentialing program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centres enrolling patients underwent rigorous quality assurance before joining the trial. Following this each centre was visited for a dosimetry audit, which consisted of treatment planning system tests, fluence verification films, combined field films and dose point measurements. RESULTS: Mean dose point measurements were made at six centres. For the primary planning target volume (PTV) the differences with the planned values for the IMRT and CRT arms were -0.6% (1.8% to -2.4%) and 0.7% (2.0% to -0.9%), respectively. Ninety-four percent of the IMRT fluence films for individual fields passed gamma criterion of 3%/3mm and 75% of the films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 4%/3mm (no significant difference between dynamic delivery and step and shoot delivery). CONCLUSIONS: This audit suggests that a 3% tolerance could be applied for PTV point doses. For dose distributions tolerances of 3%/3mm on individual fields and 4%/3mm for combined fields are proposed for multi-centre head and neck IMRT trials.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectHead and Neck Canceren
dc.subjectCancer Stagingen
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Squamous Cell
dc.subject.meshDose-Response Relationship, Radiation
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studies
dc.subject.meshHead and Neck Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMedical Audit
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshNeoplasm Staging
dc.subject.meshProspective Studies
dc.subject.meshQuality Control
dc.subject.meshRadiation Tolerance
dc.subject.meshRadiometry
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy Dosage
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy, Computer-Assisted
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
dc.subject.meshRisk Factors
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
dc.titleDosimetry audit for a multi-centre IMRT head and neck trial.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Physics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. catharine.clark@rmh.nhs.uken
dc.identifier.journalRadiotherapy and Oncologyen
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: PARSPORT was a multi-centre randomised trial in the UK which compared Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for patients with head and neck cancer. The dosimetry audit goals were to verify the plan delivery in participating centres, ascertain what tolerances were suitable for head and neck IMRT trials and develop an IMRT credentialing program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centres enrolling patients underwent rigorous quality assurance before joining the trial. Following this each centre was visited for a dosimetry audit, which consisted of treatment planning system tests, fluence verification films, combined field films and dose point measurements. RESULTS: Mean dose point measurements were made at six centres. For the primary planning target volume (PTV) the differences with the planned values for the IMRT and CRT arms were -0.6% (1.8% to -2.4%) and 0.7% (2.0% to -0.9%), respectively. Ninety-four percent of the IMRT fluence films for individual fields passed gamma criterion of 3%/3mm and 75% of the films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 4%/3mm (no significant difference between dynamic delivery and step and shoot delivery). CONCLUSIONS: This audit suggests that a 3% tolerance could be applied for PTV point doses. For dose distributions tolerances of 3%/3mm on individual fields and 4%/3mm for combined fields are proposed for multi-centre head and neck IMRT trials.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record