1141 / 1245
Use of a common data set as input for 7 commercial planning systems
Test package
Comparison: Percentage deviations of the local dose except points ourside the
penumbra or under blocs where the deviation was expressed relatively to the dose on
the central axis of the open beam.
Confidence límit:
Tolerance: depending on the region
Performance testing – Test package example
Appl ication of a test package in an intercomparison of the
photon dose calculation performance of treatment planning systems
used in a cl inical setting
Jack Venselaar
a,
* , Hans Wel leweerd
b
a
Department of Radiotherapy, Dr B. Verbeeten Institute, P.O. Box 90120, 5000 LA Tilburg, The Netherlands
b
Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 8500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Received 26 May 2000; received in revised form 12 December 2000; accepted 9 January 2001
Abstract
Background and purpose: T sting the performance of treatmen planning system by using the AAPM Task Group 23 t st package is a
useful approach, but has its limitations. To be able to include technical developments, such as the asymmetric collimator, it was decided to
remeasure the AAPM data set on more modern radiotherapy equipment, to extend the test geometries, and to evaluate the use of the new
package.
Materials a d m thods: A coherent set of beam data of 6, 10 and 18 MV photon beamswasmeasured on two modern linear accelerators.
These data served as input data in seven commercially available treatment planning systems, which were clinically in use in different
radiotherapy departments. Next, a test package was measured which included a missing tissue geometry and ®elds with asymmetrical
collimator setting, with and without a wedge.
Results: The absolute dose prediction from the different treatment planning systems in which themeasured beam datawere entered, was
compared for all test pointswith the resultsof direct measurements. Thecriteriaof acceptability wereexceeded by somesystems in casesof
irregular ®eld geometry and missing tissue geometry. The majority of the systems had dif®culties with accurate dose calculation for
asymmetrically wedged ®elds.
Conclusions: The application of the new test package did not introduce insuperable dif®culties and was highly appreciated by the
participating centres. Most systemsperformed reasonably well for themajority of thebeamgeometries, with theexception of asymmetrically
wedged beams. The extended test package is available for other users or user groups for the purpose of commissioning new treatment
planning systems, or new releases of existing systems. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 60 (2001) 203±213
www.elsevier.com/locate/radonline