Table 2.

Questions and results of the three-dimensional treatment planning system (3DTPS) test survey

Questions		Answer options
Q1	What were your impressions of the 3DTPS planning exercise? Please score from 1 to 10. 1 to be clinically irrelevant 10 to be clinically relevant	Mean score=6 Median score=7 Range=2–10
Q2	How did you find the planning process of 3DTPS? Please score from 1 to 10. 1 to be hard 10 to be easy	Mean score=6 Median score=7 Range=3–8
Q3	How easy was the 3DTPS planning guidelines document to follow? Please score from 1 to 10. 1 to be unclear and misleading 10 to be clear and easy to understand	Mean score=8 Median score=8 Range=7–10
Q4	How easy did you find the planning goals and their relative priorities to achieve? Please score from 1 to 10. 1 to be difficult to follow 10 to be straightforward	Mean score=6 Median score=7 Range=3–9
Q5	Did you have any difficulties in achieving any dose constraints listed in the 3DTPS planning guidelines?	Primary planning goal • OAR dose constraint=1 centre • PTV2 dose constraints=0 centre
		Secondary planning goal • PTV1 dose constraints=0 centre • PTV3 dose constraints=2 centre
		Tertiary planning goal • PTV4 dose constraints=6 centres • PTV5 dose constraints=3 centres
Q6	Did you validate the delivery of the 3DTPS plan on your own IMRT QA system?	Yes=10 out of 10 centres
Q7	What equipment did you use for the 3DTPS test QA?	• aScandiDos Delta4®=5centres • PTW 2D array and aOctavius™ Phantom=4 centres • Ion chamber point doses and film analysis=1 centre
Q8	Did you use gamma analysis for QA assessment?	Yes (9 centres) No (1 centre that used point dose measurement and a profile agreement on films with a tolerance of 3%)

IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; OAR, organ at risk; PTV, planning target volume; QA, quality assurance.

^aScandiDos Delta4 is manufactured by ScandiDos AB, Uppsala, Sweden; Octavius Phantom is manufactured by PTW Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.