Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy  Joerg Lehmann, Andrew Alves, Leon Dunn, Maddison Shaw, John Kenny, Stephanie Keehan, Jeremy Supple, Francis Gibbons, Sophie Manktelow, Chris Oliver, Tomas Kron, Ivan Williams, Jessica Lye  Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology  Volume 6, Pages 5-11 (April 2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006 Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 Dose variation at near reference condition (Case 1 Point 1): raw variation as per equation (1) (closed circles, Mean −0.4%, SD 1.2%) and variation corrected by facility reported output (open symbols, Mean −0.5%, SD 1.0%). Here and in all following figures results are broken down by planning and delivery system combination. Eclipse results are further broken down into dose calculation algorithms, as some results differ between them. Results for Pinnacle, Xio and Monaco are not further broken into the encountered respective dose calculation algorithms, as no significant differences have been observed here. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 PDD investigations: dose variations for points at different depths in the phantom corrected by the dose variation measured in Case 1 Point 1 per Eq. (2). Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Dose variation for points behind lung (Case 4 Points 2–5), corrected by the dose variation measured in Case 1 Point 1 per Eq. (2). Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 4 Dose variation inside lung: Case 3 Point 8, right lateral (RLAT) and left lateral (LLAT) beams, corrected by the dose variation measured in Case 1 Point 1 per Eq. (2). Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 5 Dose variations for Case 2. Dose variation at the measurement points has been corrected by the dose variation measured in Case 1 Point 1 per Eq. (2). Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Fig. 6 Wedge impact. Difference in dose variations for Cases 4 (no wedge) and 5 (60° wedge). Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 1 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 2 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 3 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 4 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 5 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 6 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 7 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 8 Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology 2018 6, 5-11DOI: (10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006) Copyright © 2018 Terms and Conditions