摘要目的:基于AAPM-TG218号报告对河南省肿瘤医院的调强计划进行分类剂量验证，以了解剂量验证的现况，建立剂量验证的流程和确定限值。方法:对河南省肿瘤医院不同肿瘤、加速器、计划系统和验证设备的组合进行验证比较，确定各项组合的容差限值和干预限值。测量要求按照报告进行，各项测量选取80例患者，测量流程按报告要求及临床经验建立的流程进行。结果:本研究调强计划剂量验证临床干预限值基本能达到报告所建议范围，而容差限值稍低于报告所建议(3%/2 mm时为93.94%)。验证设备测量与敏感性有关，电子射野影像装置所测量的容差限值高于ArcCHECK，尤其在剂量/距离要求更加严格情况下(3%/2 mm时为94.12%和92.03%， P＝0.074；2%/2 mm时为86.82%和74.61%， P＝0.017)。 结论:通过AAPM-TG218号报告，建立了河南省肿瘤医院调强验证工作流程和限值范围，为以后临床剂量测量工作提供了指导。

abstractsObjective:Based on the AAPM-TG218 report, the dose verification of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were classified to understand the current status, establish the process and determine the limits of dose verification in our hospital.Methods:Different combinations of tumor locations, accelerators, treatment planning systems and verification devices in our hospital were verified and compared to determine the tolerance limits and action limits of each combination. The measurement requirement was adopted according to the AAPM-TG218 report, and 80 cases were selected for each measurement. The measurement procedures were implemented based upon the AAPM-TG218 report and clinical experience of our hospital.Results:The clinical action limits of IMRT plans in our hospital could meet the recommended range of the AAPM-TG218 report, and the tolerance limits were slightly lower than the AAPM-TG218 report′s recommendation (93.94% for 3%/2 mm). The measurement of verification devices was related to the sensitivity. The tolerance limits measured by EPID were higher than ArcCHECK, especially when the dose/distance requirements were more stringent (94.12% and 92.03% for 3%/2 mm, P=0.074; 86.82% and 74.61% for 2%/2 mm, P=0.017). Conclusion:Through the AAPM-TG218 report, the work flow of IMRT dose verification and the limit range are established in our hospital, providing guidance for subsequent clinical dosimetric measurement.