Skip to main content
  • 2217 Accesses


Treatment planning systems are computer software trying to predict the real dose absorbed by the patient using experimental data. Technologic progress in recent years has made it possible to obtain planning techniques for high-dose gradients by using inverse planning techniques. Obtained doses from three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) can be validated by calculation of doses at different points. However, more knowledge and skill are expected from intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning systems. Unlike the 3D-CRT, the IMRT field is made of many small, asymmetrical and irregular subfields. Subfields correctively obtained as a result of leaf positions are more important than in 3D-CRT. As subfields are created with multileaf collimators, naturally, accuracy of the multileaf collimator becomes more important. Multileaf collimator positioning error in IMRT causes worse results than in 3D-CRT. Furthermore, leaf transmission, output linearity, and similar data affect IMRT results much more than 3D-CRT results. Therefore, medical physicists must check the reality of results predicted by the planning system and each clinic must have its own specific quality assurance (QA) procedure [1].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Palta JR, Lıu C, Lı JG. Quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S108–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Michael B. Sharpe Commissioning and quality assurance for IMRT treatment planning. In: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: The State of Art. 1st ed. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2003. p. 449–75.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alber M, Broggi S, Wagter CD, et al. ESTRO Booklet No.9: guidelines for the verification of IMRT. 1st ed. Brussels: ESTRO; 2008. p. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Xia P, Chuang C. Patient-specific quality assurance in IMRT. In: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the state of art. 1st ed. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2003. p. 495–515.

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Wagter C. The ideal dosimeter for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): what is required? (DOSGEL2004, Ghent, Belgium). J Phys Conf Ser. 2004;3:4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagter CD. QA-QC of IMRT—European perspective. In: Bortfeld T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Neve WD, Wazer DE, editors. Image-guided IMRT. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 117–28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical acceleratos. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. LoSasso TJ. IMRT delivery system QA. In: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: The State of Art. 1st ed. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2003. p. 561–93.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chui CS, Spirou S, LoSasso T. Testing of dynamic multileaf collimation. Med Phys. 1996;23:635–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyer A, Biggs P, Galvin J, et al. Applications of Multileaf Collimators: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 50. AAPM Report No. 72. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hwang I-M, Wu J, Chuang K-S, Ding H-J. An alternative effective method for verifying the multileaf collimator leaves speed by using a digital-video imaging system. J Nima. 2010;623:867–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kiran F, Erturk ME, Yolcu T. Evaluation of multileaf collimator speed in dinamic IMRT. In: 13th Meeting of the National Medical Physics Education Book. November 17–19 2011, Cesme, Izmir, Turkey; 2011. p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Nesrin D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5359–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nelms B, Simon W, Jursinic P. “Verification of IMRT delivery using a 2-D diode array and analysis software”, Abstract. Med Phys. 2002;29(6):1364.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meltem Atamel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Atamel, M., Erturk, E. (2013). Quality Assurance. In: Haydaroglu, A., Ozyigit, G. (eds) Principles and Practice of Modern Radiotherapy Techniques in Breast Cancer. Springer, New York, NY.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5115-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5116-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics