4.6 Article

The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (NCS-35)

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acfd06

关键词

treatment planning; quality assurance; commissioning; code of practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A subcommittee of NCS was established in 2018 to update and extend a previous publication on the quality assurance of TPS. This report has a broader scope, focusing on the department-wide implementation of TPS, and includes new sections on education, automated planning, IT, and updates.
A subcommittee of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS) was initiated in 2018 with the task to update and extend a previous publication (NCS-15) on the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (TPS) (Bruinvis et al 2005). The field of treatment planning has changed considerably since 2005. Whereas the focus of the previous report was more on the technical aspects of the TPS, the scope of this report is broader with a focus on a department wide implementation of the TPS. New sections about education, automated planning, information technology (IT) and updates are therefore added. Although the scope is photon therapy, large parts of this report will also apply to all other treatment modalities. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines; the full version of the report in English is freely available from the NCS website (http://radiationdosimetry.org/ncs/publications). The paper starts with the scope of this report in relation to earlier reports on this subject. Next, general aspects of the commissioning process are addressed, like e.g. project management, education, and safety. It then focusses more on technical aspects such as beam commissioning and patient modeling, dose representation, dose calculation and (automated) plan optimisation. The final chapters deal with IT-related subjects and scripting, and the process of updating or upgrading the TPS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据