1 / 16

Results of IAEA supported TPS audit in Europe

Results of IAEA supported TPS audit in Europe. Eduard Gershkevitsh North Estonia Medical Center Tallinn, Estonia. Principles of operation. TPS audit uses IAEA TECDOC 1583 methodology IAEA provides CIRS Thorax phantom on loan for 6 month to the Member State

renata
Download Presentation

Results of IAEA supported TPS audit in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results of IAEA supported TPS audit in Europe Eduard Gershkevitsh North Estonia Medical Center Tallinn, Estonia

  2. Principles of operation • TPS audit uses IAEA TECDOC 1583 methodology • IAEA provides CIRS Thorax phantom on loan for 6 month to the Member State • IAEA together with national audit coordinator (Medical Physics group, RT department nominated by the national authorities) organise one day workshop in the country • National audit coordinator’s centre is audited by independent auditor • National audit coordinator is performing audits through on site visits

  3. IAEA TECDOC 1583 methodology • Based on anthropomorphic phantom • To verify that logistic chain: • CT scanning • Treatment planning • Data transfer • Dose delivery • is operational and leads to desired results with sufficient accuracy • Employs ionisation chamber measurements

  4. IAEA TECDOC 1583 methodology • Eight test cases with 15 measurement points • Single 10x10cm2 field at nominal SSD • Tangential field with wedge • Corner blocks • 4-field “box” • Customised blocking • Oblique incidence with L-shape block • Half fields with wedges • Non-coplanar field arrangement • Agreement criteria 2-5% depending on complexity

  5. National TPS audit coordinators • B. Petrovic– Institute of Oncology Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia • C. Pesznyak– National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary • K. Chelminski– M. Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland • J. Grezdo– St. Elizabeth Institute of Oncology, Bratislava, Slovakia • M. do Carmo Lopes– Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Coimbra, Portugal • E. Gershkevitsh– North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia

  6. Participants of the TPS Audit • 8 countries • 61 centres • 195 datasets(combination of algorithms and beam quality)

  7. CT to RED conversion • CT to RED conversion curve required adjustment in 2/3 of centres(criteria used adopted from IAEA TRS 430 – for the same electron density the variation should not exceed ± 20HU for all materials except water (± 5HU)

  8. Dosimetry problems • Discrepancies requiring intervention and not related to algorithm limitations were found in approximately 9% of datasets Reasons for deviations

  9. Calibration • Use of chamber with outdated calibration factor • Use of plastic phantom instead of water for calibration • Incorrect value in TPS

  10. Input beam data & model fitting • Typographic errors • Use of standard data • Quality of measurement data • Sub-optimal beam fitting

  11. Problems with model beam fitting

  12. Problems with treatment unit • New couch top was installed and unaccounted. This lead to 8% underdose from posterior fields • Loose mechanical wedge

  13. Accuracy achievable • With corrected data and advanced algorithms the majority of the measurements are within agreement criteria

  14. Conclusion • Input beam data and suboptimal beam modelling werethe largest contributors to observed deviations • CT to RED conversion is customised in minority of centres • The majority of observed deviations have been corrected • Contribution to better understanding of TPS performance and its limitations

  15. Acknowledgement • Stanislav Vatnitsky for drafting a proposal for TPS audit • Joanna Izewska for support and implementation of the TPS audit at IAEA • To national audit coordinators • To medical physicist at audited RT departments

  16. Thank you for attention! More details: Gershkevitsh E, Pesznyak C, Petrovic B, Grezdo J, Chelminski K, do Carmo Lopes M, Izewska J, Van Dyk J. Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit. ActaOncol. 2014 May;53(5):628-36.

More Related