The aim of this work was to evaluate the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and verify the accuracy of the planning and delivery system used in this work based on the AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system (TPS) was used to plan the TG-119 test suite, which included four test cases: MultiTarget, Prostate, Head/Neck, and C-Shape for IMRT and VMAT techniques with 6 MV and 10 MV acceleration voltages. The results were assessed and discussed in terms of the TG-119 protocol and the results of previous studies. In addition, point dose and planar dose measurements were done using a semiflex ion chamber and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), respectively. The planned doses of all test cases met the criteria of the TG-119 protocol, except those for the spinal cord of the C-Shape hard case. There were no significant differences between the treatment planning doses and the doses given in the TG-119 report, with p-values ranging from 0.974 to 1 (p > 0.05). Doses to the target volumes were similar in the IMRT and VMAT plans, but the organs at risk (OARs) doses were different depending on the test case. The planning results showed that IMRT is more conformal than VMAT in certain cases. For the point dose measurements, the confidence limit (CL_point) of 0.030 and 0.021 were better than the corresponding values of 0.045 and 0.047 given in the TG-119 report for high-dose and low-dose areas, respectively. Regarding the planar dose measurements, the CL_planar value of 0.38 obtained in this work was lower than that given in the TG-119 report (12.4). It is concluded that the dosimetry measurements performed in this study showed better confidence limits than those provided in the TG 119 report. IMRT remains more conformal in certain circumstances than the more progressive VMAT. When selecting the method of delivering a dose to the patient, several factors must be considered, including the radiotherapy technique, energy, treatment site, and tumour geometry.

本工作的目的是评估调强放射治疗 (IMRT) 和容积调制弧形治疗 (VMAT) 的一致性，并验证本工作中使用的基于 AAPM TG-119 协议的计划和交付系统的准确性。 Eclipse 13.6 治疗计划系统 (TPS) 用于计划 TG-119 测试套件，其中包括四个测试用例：多目标、前列腺、头/颈和 C 形，用于 IMRT 和 VMAT 技术，具有 6 MV 和 10 MV 加速电压。根据 TG-119 方案和之前的研究结果对结果进行了评估和讨论。此外，分别使用半屈离子室和电子射野成像设备（EPID）进行点剂量和平面剂量测量。除C型硬盒脊髓的剂量外，所有测试盒的计划剂量均符合TG-119方案的标准。治疗计划剂量与 TG-119 报告中给出的剂量没有显着差异， p值范围为 0.974 至 1 ( p > 0.05)。 IMRT 和 VMAT 计划中目标体积的剂量相似，但危及器官 (OAR) 剂量根据测试案例而不同。计划结果表明，在某些情况下，IMRT 比 VMAT 更适形。对于点剂量测量，0.030 和 0.021 的置信限（CL_点）分别优于 TG-119 报告中针对高剂量和低剂量区域给出的相应值 0.045 和 0.047。关于平面剂量测量，本工作中获得的 CL_平面值为 0.38，低于 TG-119 报告中给出的值 (12.4)。 结论是，本研究中进行的剂量测定显示出比 TG 119 报告中提供的剂量更好的置信限。 IMRT 在某些情况下比渐进式 VMAT 更保形。在选择向患者输送剂量的方法时，必须考虑几个因素，包括放射治疗技术、能量、治疗部位和肿瘤的几何形状。