Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 6, 2019

Comparison of patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance for the prostate across multiple institutions

Kazuki Kubo, Hajime Monzen, Kohei Shimomura, Kenji Matsumoto, Tomoharu Sato, Mikoto Tamura, Kiyoshi Nakamatsu, Kentaro Ishii, Ryu Kawamorita


Aim To evaluate the success of a patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) practice for prostate cancer patients across multiple institutions using a questionnaire survey. Background The IMRT QA practice involves different methods of dose distribution verification and analysis at different institutions. Materials and Methods Two full-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan and 7 fixed-gantry IMRT plan with DMLC were used for patient specific QA across 22 institutions. The same computed tomography image and structure set were used for all plans. Each institution recalculated the dose distribution with fixed monitor units and without any modification. Single-point dose measurement with a cylindrical ionization chamber and dose distribution verification with a multi-detector or radiochromic film were performed, according to the QA process at each institution. Results Twenty-two institutions performed the patient-specific IMRT QA verifications. With a single-point dose measurement at the isocenter, the average difference between the calculated and measured doses was 0.5 ± 1.9%. For the comparison of dose distributions, 18 institutions used a two or three-dimensional array detector, while the others used Gafchromic film. In the γ test with dose difference/distance-to-agreement criteria of 3%−3 mm and 2%−2 mm with a 30% dose threshold, the median gamma pass rates were 99.3% (range: 41.7%–100.0%) and 96.4% (range: 29.4%–100.0%), respectively. Conclusion This survey was an informative trial to understand the verification status of patient-specific IMRT QA measurements for prostate cancer. In most institutions, the point dose measurement and dose distribution differences met the desired criteria.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(6) : 600-605

« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.