Agreement Between Institutional Measurements and Treatment Planning System Calculations for Basic Dosimetric Parameters as Measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston

Purpose To compare radiation machine measurement data collected by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-H) with institutional treatment planning system (TPS) values, to identify parameters with large differences in agreement; the findings will help institutions focus their efforts to improve the accuracy of their TPS models. Methods and Materials Between 2000 and 2014, IROC-H visited more than 250 institutions and conducted independent measurements of machine dosimetric data points, including percentage depth dose, output factors, off-axis factors, multileaf collimator small fields, and wedge data. We compared these data with the institutional TPS values for the same points by energy, class, and parameter to identify differences and similarities using criteria involving both the medians and standard deviations for Varian linear accelerators. Distributions of differences between machine measurements and institutional TPS values were generated for basic dosimetric parameters. Results On average, intensity modulated radiation therapy–style and stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors and upper physical wedge output factors were the most problematic. Percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, and enhanced dynamic wedge output factors agreed best between the IROC-H measurements and the TPS values. Although small differences were shown between 2 common TPS systems, neither was superior to the other. Parameter agreement was constant over time from 2000 to 2014. Conclusions Differences in basic dosimetric parameters between machine measurements and TPS values vary widely depending on the parameter, although agreement does not seem to vary by TPS and has not changed over time. Intensity modulated radiation therapy–style output factors, stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors, and upper physical wedge output factors had the largest disagreement and should be carefully modeled to ensure accuracy.