Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering

Joint Journal of the German Society for Biomedical Engineering in VDE and the Austrian and Swiss Societies for Biomedical Engineering

Editor-in-Chief: Dössel, Olaf

Editorial Board: Augat, Peter / Buzug, Thorsten M. / Haueisen, Jens / Jockenhoevel, Stefan / Knaup-Gregori, Petra / Kraft, Marc / Lenarz, Thomas / Leonhardt, Steffen / Malberg, Hagen / Penzel, Thomas / Plank, Gernot / Radermacher, Klaus M. / Schkommodau, Erik / Stieglitz, Thomas / Urban, Gerald A.

CiteScore 2018: 0.47

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.377

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

A multi-institutional survey evaluating patient related QA – phase II

Inclusion of Mobius3D as a secondary dose verification tool – preliminary results

Tobias Teichmann
  • Corresponding author
  • Universitätsklinikum Jena, department for Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, Bachstr. 18, D-07743 Jena, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Henning Salz / Michael Schwedas / Simon Howitz / Tilo Wiezorek
Published Online: 2017-09-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2017-0134


In phase I of the survey a planning intercomparison of patient-related QA was performed at 12 institutions. The participating clinics created phantom based IMRT and VMAT plans which were measured utilizing the ArcCheck diode array. Mobius3D (M3D) was used in phase II. It acts as a secondary dose verification tool for patient-specific QA based on average linac beam data collected by Mobius Medical Systems. All Quasimodo linac plans will be analyzed for the continuation of the intercomparison. We aim to determine if Mobius3D is suited for use with diverse treatment techniques, if beam model customization is needed. Initially we computed first Mobius3D results by transferring all plans from phase I to our Mobius3D server. Because of some larger PTV mean dose differences we checked if output factor customization would be beneficial. We performed measurements and output factor correction to account for discrepancies in reference conditions. Compared to Mobius3D's preconfigured average beam data values, these corrected output factors differed by ±1.5% for field sizes between 7x7cm2 and 30x30cm2 and to −3.9% for 3x3cm2. Our method of correcting the output factors turns out good congruence to M3D's reference values for these medium field sizes.

Keywords: Mobius3D; dose verification; intercomparison; software; QA; IMRT; VMAT; output factor; beam model

About the article

Published Online: 2017-09-07

Citation Information: Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 639–642, ISSN (Online) 2364-5504, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2017-0134.

Export Citation

©2017 Tobias Teichmann et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in