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 14, Number 1, 2009

Quality Assurance of TPS: comparison of dose calculation for stereotactic patients in Eclipse and iPlan RT Dose

Borislava Petrovic, Aleksandra Grządziel, Krzysztof Ślosarek


Background: Quality assurance (QA) in the radiation therapy planning process is essential to ensure accurate dose delivery to the patient and to minimize the possibility of accidental exposure. In recent years, several reports have been developed addressing issues related to the commissioning and quality assurance (QA) of RTP Ss.
Aim: To evaluate the differences between dose distributions obtained with different dose calculation algorithms implemented in TP Ss for stereotactic irradiation.
Materials and Methods: BrainLab’s iPlan v. 3.0.2 RT Dose calculates by pencil beam algorithm, while Eclipse v.7.5.18 (Varian Medical Systems) calculates by different types of pencil beam / AAA algorithms (selectable).
Results: The largest difference was found in the lung patient, where a difference of 10.3% in the number of monitor units and 8.3% in dose to the isocentre occurred (with calculation by AAA algorithm of Eclipse in relation to iPlan PB algorithm). The average difference in all other cases (AAA compared to iPlan) was 2.2% for MUs and 1.5% for dose to the isocentre. The average difference in all other cases (PB compared to iPlan) was 1.9% for MUs and 3.2% for dose to the isocentre. When data were transferred from iPlan through DICOM RT to Eclipse, for all patients an isocentre shift was observed.
Conclusion: The dose distribution calculated by three different photon calculation algorithms results in clinically significant dose differences in isodose distribution, especially in the area of high inhomogeneities.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2009; 14(1) : 5-10


« back


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