Confidence limits for patient‐specific IMRT dose QA: a multi‐institutional study in Korea. (8th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Jung‐in; Chung, Jin‐Beom; Song, Ju‐Young; Kim, Sung Kyu; Choi, Yunseok; Choi, Chang Heon; Choi, Won Hoon; Cho, Byungchul; Kim, Jin Sung; Kim, Sung Jin; Ye, Sung‐Joon
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 17:Number 1(2016)
• Page Start: 62
• Page End: 69
• Publication Date: 2016-01-08
• Subjects: confidence limit -- IMRT dose QA -- correlation -- multi‐institutional study; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5607
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : This study aims to investigate tolerance levels for patient‐specific IMRT dose QA (DQA) using the confidence limits (CL) determined by a multi‐institutional study. Eleven institutions participated in the multi‐institutional study in Korea. A total of 155 DQA measurements, consisting of point‐dose differences (high‐ and low‐dose regions) and gamma passing rates (composite and per‐field) for IMRT patients with brain, head and neck (H&N), abdomen, and prostate cancers were examined. The Shapiro‐Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of data grouped by the treatment sites and the DQA methods. The confidence limit coefficients in cases of the normal distribution, and the two‐sided Student's t ‐distribution were applied to determine the confidence limits for the grouped data. The Spearman's test was applied to assess the sensitivity of DQA results within the limited groups. The differences in CLs between the two confidence coefficients based on the normal and t ‐distributions were negligible for the point‐dose data and the gamma passing rates with 3 % / 3 criteria. However, with 2 % / 2 criteria, the difference in CLs were 1.6% and 2.2% for composite and per‐field measurements, respectively. This resulted from the large standard deviation and the more sensitive criteria of 2 % / 2 . There was no noticeable correlation among the different QA methods. Our multi‐institutional study suggested that the CL was not a suitable metric for defining the tolerance level when the statistics of the sample group did not follow the normality and had a large standard deviation. PACS number: 87.55.Qr