Estimation of local confidence limit for 6 MV photon beam IMRT system using AAPM TG 119 test protocol

Avinash Kadam, Sunil Sharma


Purpose: The aim of this study was to estimate local confidence limit for 6 MV photon beam based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using TG119 test protocol.

Methods: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 119 (TG119) prescribed a protocol to evaluate overall accuracy of IMRT system rather than independent uncertainty in dose calculation, dose delivery and measurement system. Two preliminary and five clinical test cases were created based on dose prescriptions and planning objectives given by TG119 report. Verification plans were created in a planning slab phantom, 2D Matrix dosimetry system (I’MatriXX) with multicube phantom and aS-1000 electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Radiation absorbed doses to high dose points in the planning target volume (PTV) region and low dose points in avoidance structures were measured using CC13 ionization chamber having sensitive volume of 0.13 cm3. The measured and planned doses were normalized with respect to their prescription doses and intercompared. The gamma analysis was carried out for both I’MatriXX and EPID, adopting the acceptance criteria of 3% DD (dose difference) and 3 mm DTA (distance to agreement) with 10% threshold dose.

Results: For the point dose measurements with ion chamber, the average dose difference ratio in high dose low gradient PTV region was -0.0133 ± 0.012 corresponding to a confidence limit of 0.037. The average dose difference in low dose region (avoidance structure) was -0.00004 ± 0.010 corresponding to a confidence limit of 0.021. The average percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3% DD and 3 mm DTA for composite planar dose distribution measured by I’MatriXX was 99.47 ± 0.43 which corresponds to a confidence limit of 1.38 (i.e. 98.62% passing). Similarly, the average percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3% DD and 3 mm DTA for per-field dose distribution measured by EPID was 98.00 ± 2.49 which corresponds to a confidence limit of 6.87.

Conclusion: Our results were well within action level given by AAPM TG119 report through multi-institutional study providing us adequate confidence in delivering IMRT treatment.


Confidence Limit, TG119, IMRT, Dosimetry

Full Text:



Chang Z, Wang Z, Wu QJ, et al. Dosimetric Characteristics of NovalisTx System with High Definition Multi-leaf Collimator. Med Phys. 2008;35:4460-3.

Jin JY, Yin FF, Ryu S, et al. Dosimetric study using different leaf-width MLCs for treatment planning of dynamic conformal arcs and intensity-modulated radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2005;32:405-11.

Fiveash JB, Murshed H, Duan J, et al. Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2002; 29:1116-9.

Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. Med Phys. 2003;30:2089-115.

Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36:5359–73.

Chung JB, Kim JS, Ha SW, Ye SJ. Stastical analysis of IMRT dosimetry quality assurance measurements for local delivery guideline. Radiat Oncol. 2011:6:27.

Thomas M, ChandrothM. Local confidence limits for IMRT and VMAT techniques: a study based on TG119 test suite. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014;37:59-74.

Saminathan S, Manickam R, Chandraraj V, Supe SS. Dosimetric study of 2D ion chamber array matrix for the modern radiotherapy treatment verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:3076.

Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998; 25:656-61.

Palta JR, Liu C, Li JG. Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:108-112.

Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011;38:1313-38.

Sharma DS, Mhatre V, Heigrujam M, et al. Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:3268.

Bailey DW, Kumaraswamy L, Balkhtiari M, et al. EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13:3736.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.


International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)

© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.


Number of visits since October, 2013