Author(s)

Jinyu Xue^1*, Jared D. Ohrt², James Fan³, Peter Balter², Joo Han Park⁴, Leonard Kim⁴, Steven M. Kirsner², Geoffrey S. Ibbott²

¹Department of Radiation Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
²Department of Radiation Physics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
³Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
⁴Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Camden, NJ, USA.

Recently published Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a. (MPPG 5.a.) by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) sets the minimum requirements for treatment planning system (TPS) dose algorithm commissioning and quality assurance (QA). The guideline recommends some validation tests and tolerances based primarily on published AAPM task group reports and the criteria used by IROC Houston. We performed the commissioning and validation of the dose algorithms for both megavoltage photon and electron beams on three linacs following MPPG 5.a. We designed the validation experiments in an attempt to highlight the evaluation method and tolerance criteria recommended by the guideline. It seems that comparison of dose profiles using in-water scan is an effective technique for basic photon and electron validation. IMRT/VMAT dose calculation is recommended to be tested with some TG-119 and clinical cases, but no consensus of the tolerance exists. Extensive validation tests have provided the better understanding of the accuracy and limitation of a specific dose calculation algorithm. We believe that some tests and evaluation criteria given in the guideline can be further refined.

Dose Calculation Algorithm, Treatment Planning System, Beam Data Modeling, Validation Test, MPPG 5.a.

Xue, J. , Ohrt, J. , Fan, J. , Balter, P. , Park, J. , Kim, L. , Kirsner, S. and Ibbott, G. (2017) Validation of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Experience Working with Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 6, 57-72. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.61006.