% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Qubala:307464,
author = {A. Qubala and C. P. Karger$^*$ and J. Horn and M. Winter
and M. Ellerbrock and O. Jäkel$^*$ and K. Henkner},
title = {{P}atient-specific quality assurance at the {H}eidelberg
{I}on {B}eam {T}herapy {C}enter: 10 years experience in
treatment plan verification.},
journal = {Medical physics},
volume = {53},
number = {1},
issn = {0094-2405},
address = {Hoboken, NJ},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-03063},
pages = {e70237},
year = {2026},
abstract = {To ensure accurate, safe, and reproducible patient
treatments, it is essential to have precise knowledge and a
solid understanding of patient-specific quality assurance
(PSQA). For many years, the delivery of doses to all
patients has been verified using dosimetric measurements.
However, these measurements require substantial work, and
the reasons for the occasional deviations are unclear. For
these reasons, alternative methods such as independent dose
calculations (IDCs) and analysis of beam-monitor log files
are increasingly discussed in the particle therapy
community. Nevertheless, before replacing dose-verification
measurements with other methods, existing measurement data
should be thoroughly analyzed to determine what can be
learned from them and how they compare with potential
alternatives. These alternative methods are mentioned in
this work only to provide context and to outline possible
directions for future studies.To evaluate the dosimetric
accuracy and efficiency of PSQA using a water phantom (WP)
over a 10-year period at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy
Center (HIT).Between 2016 and 2025, 23014 treatment fields
with protons, carbon, or helium ions were verified using a
WP equipped with 24 pinpoint ionization chambers. The
patient treatment plans were recalculated in the water
phantom geometry and compared to measured absolute doses.
The data were categorized by treatment room, ion species,
treatment planning systems (TPS), range shifter (RaShi) use,
indication, depth, and target volume, excluding measurements
with human errors. Statistical analysis compared measured
and calculated doses, focusing on mean, maximum, and minimum
dose deviations. Furthermore, the workflow efficiency was
assessed based on the beam time required for dosimetric
verification, as well as the total time needed for
preparation and analysis.Mean dose deviations were in
general slightly negative (t-test, p < 0.01), within ±1
$\%$ across all categories (total mean ± SD = -0.50 ± 0.90
$\%),$ with 91 $\%$ of fields passing institutional ±5 $\%$
tolerances. Further, significant differences (p < 0.01) were
also observed between treatment rooms, ion species, TPS
platforms, and RaShi settings. Additionally, the RayStation
TPS showed lower deviations than the Syngo TPS, and helium
ions had the smallest deviations. Moreover, repeated
verifications reduced variability but without significant
improvement. Correlations with target depth or volume were
statistically significant but clinically negligible. Less
than 1 $\%$ of maximum and minimum dose measurements
exceeded ±7 $\%$ annually. Finally, over 4308 h of beam
time, preparation, and analysis were spent on PSQA during
the 10-year period.PSQA at HIT demonstrated high dosimetric
accuracy and delivery stability. Integration of IDCs and log
file analysis may improve efficiency and allow to omit
verification measurements in well-established cases without
compromising patient safety and treatment quality, if the
extensive machine QA program is maintained.},
keywords = {Quality Assurance, Health Care / Humans / Radiotherapy
Planning, Computer-Assisted: methods / Heavy Ion
Radiotherapy / Time Factors / Radiotherapy Dosage /
Phantoms, Imaging / Radiometry / dose measurements (Other) /
dose verification (Other) / helium and carbon ion beam
therapy (Other) / particle therapy (Other) / patient
specific quality assurance (Other) / proton (Other) / spot
scanning (Other) / water phantom (Other)},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:41452343},
pmc = {pmc:PMC12742551},
doi = {10.1002/mp.70237},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/307464},
}