Houston History of Medicine Society 2008-2009 Schedule and Abstracts

The National Library of Medicine and the Continuing Legacy of Michael E. DeBakey, M.D. (Stephen B. Greenberg) The Legacy of William Osler: North America’s most famous physician (Robert E. Rakel) A Lady Alone: Elizabeth Blackwell: First American Woman Doctor (Linda Gray Kelley, Charlton) A Mariner with Crippling Arthritis and Bleeding Eyes: The Chronic Arthritis of Christopher Columbus (Frank C. Arnett) Generation C(affeine): A History of Caffeine Consumption and its Medical Implications (Student Essay Contest winners) (Priti Dangayach) Our Artificial Fitness? Relaxed Selection Leads to Medical Dependence (Student Essay Contest winners) Philip Boone Remembering John P. McGovern, M.D. (1921-2007) (Bryant Boutwell) Who Was Albert Schweitzer? (Bryant Boutwell) Disease, Doctors and the Duty to Treat in American History (Thomas R. Cole) Vaccinating Freedom: The African-American Experience of Smallpox Prophylaxis in Old Philadelphia, 1723-1923 (Dayle B. Delancey) The Royal Hemophilia (The Royal Hemophilia)

COMPREHENSIVE CALCULATION-BASED IMRT QA USING R&V DATA, TREATMENT RECORDS, AND A SECOND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery. Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements. Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively. Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.