Dataset Information

Brachytherapy treatment planning commissioning: effect of the election of proper bibliography and finite size of TG-43 input data on standard treatments.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of a commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) with TG-43 Vendors Input Data (VID), analyze possible discrepancies with respect to a proper reference source and its implications for standard treatments, and judge the effectiveness of certain widespread recommended quality controls to find potential errors related with the interpolations of TG-43 VID tables. The TPS evaluated was a BrachyVision 8.6 loaded with TG-43 VID for a VariSource high-dose-rate 192Ir source (Vs2000). The reference data chosen were the TG-43 data published in the literature. In the first step, we compared TG-43 VID with respect to the chosen reference data. Next, we used percent dose-rate differences in a point array matrix to compare the outcomes of the TPS on standard treatment setup with respect to an in-house developed program (MATLAB R2009a-based) loaded with the chosen full TG-43 reference data. The cases with major discrepancies were evaluated using the gamma-index analysis. The comparison with the reference data indicated a lack of sample in the angles between near to the tip (between 165 < θ < 180) and cable (0 < θ < 15) of the F(r,θ)(VID), which causes a dose underestimation of approximately 17% in the investigated points due to inaccurate interpolations. The differences over 2% encompassed approximately 17% of the surrounding source volume. These results have special relevance in treatment using one applicator with a few dwell steps or in Fletcher treatments where 10% dose underestimates were identified within the tumor or in organs at risk, respectively. Our results suggest that the differences found in the TPS under study are created by a lack of information on the angles in high-gradient zones in the F(r,θ)(VID), which generates important differences in dosimetric results. In contrast, the gamma analysis shows very good results (between 90% and 100% of passed points) in the analyzed treatments (one dwell and Fletcher). Further studies are required to exclude the possibility of finding noticeable effects in the DVH of treatment plans caused by the discrepancies here described. To achieve more strict control over the TPS dose-rate calculation, we recommend using QA test thinking in a source with nonaxial symmetry, adding a control point on the angles of the high-dose gradient zones (e.g., between 0° and 15° and between 165° and 180°). More studies are required to achieve full understanding of the clinical implication of such discrepancies.

SUBMITTER: Valdes CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5690009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall accuracy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc delivery using both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) modalities based on test cases developed by AAPM Task Group 119. Institutional confidence limits (CLs) were established as the baseline for patient specific treatment plan quality assurance (QA). The effects of gantry range, gantry speed, leaf speed, dose rate, as well as the capability to capture intentional errors, were evaluated by measuring a series of Picket Fence (PF) tests using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and EBT3 films. Both IMRT and RapidArc plans were created in a Solid Water phantom (30 × 30 × 15 cm3) for the TG-119 test cases representative of normal clinical treatment sites for all five photon energies (6X, 10X, 15X, 6X-FFF, 10X-FFF) and the Exact IGRT couch was included in the dose calculation. One high-dose point in the PTV and one low-dose point in the avoidance structure were measured with an ion chamber in each case for each energy. Similarly, two GAFCHROMIC EBT3 films were placed in the coronal planes to measure planar dose distributions in both high- and low-dose regions. The confidence limit was set to have 95% of the measured data fall within the tolerance. The mean of the absolute dose deviation for variable dose rate and gantry speed during RapidArc delivery was within 0.5% for all energies. The corresponding results for leaf speed tests were all within 0.4%. The combinations of dynamic leaf gap (DLG) and MLC transmission factor were optimized based on the ion chamber measurement results of RapidArc delivery for each energy. The average 95% CLs for the high-dose point in the PTV were 0.030 ± 0.007 (range, 0.022-0.038) for the IMRT plans and 0.029 ± 0.011 (range, 0.016-0.043) for the RapidArc plans. For low-point dose in the avoidance structures, the CLs were 0.029 ± 0.006 (range, 0.024-0.039) for the IMRT plans and 0.027 ± 0.013 (range, 0.017-0.047) for the RapidArc plans. The average 95% CLs using 3%/3 mm gamma criteria in the high-dose region were 5.9 ± 2.7 (range, 1.4-8.6) and 3.9 ± 2.9 (range, 1.5-8.8) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. The average 95% CLs in the low-dose region were 5.3 ± 2.6 (range, 1.2-7.4) and 3.7 ± 2.8 (range, 1.8-8.3) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. Based on ion chamber, as well as film measurements, we have established CLs values to ensure the high precision of IMRT and RapidArc delivery for both FF and FFF modalities.

Project description:A dose calculation verification system (VS) was acquired and commissioned as a second check on the treatment planning system (TPS). This system reads DICOM CT datasets, RT plans, RT structures, and RT dose from the TPS and automatically, using its own collapsed cone superposition/convolution algorithm, computes dose on the same CT dataset. The system was commissioned by extracting basic beam parameters for simple field geometries and dose verification for complex treatments. Percent depth doses (PDD) and profiles were extracted for field sizes using jaw settings 3 × 3 cm2 - 40 × 40 cm2 and compared to measured data, as well as our TPS model. Smaller fields of 1 × 1 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 generated using the multileaf collimator (MLC) were analyzed in the same fashion as the open fields. In addition, 40 patient plans consisting of both IMRT and VMAT were computed and the following comparisons were made: 1) TPS to the VS, 2) VS to measured data, and 3) TPS to measured data where measured data is both ion chamber (IC) and film measurements. Our results indicated for all field sizes using jaw settings PDD errors for the VS on average were less than 0.87%, 1.38%, and 1.07% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively, relative to measured data. PDD errors for MLC field sizes were less than 2.28%, 1.02%, and 2.23% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively. The infield profile analysis yielded results less than 0.58% for 6x, 0.61% for 15x, and 0.77% for 18x for the VS relative to measured data. Analysis of the penumbra region yields results ranging from 66.5% points, meeting the DTA criteria to 100% of the points for smaller field sizes for all energies. Analysis of profile data for field sizes generated using the MLC saw agreement with infield DTA analysis ranging from 68.8%-100% points passing the 1.5%/1.5 mm criteria. Results from the dose verification for IMRT and VMAT beams indicated that, on average, the ratio of TPS to IC and VS to IC measurements was 100.5 ± 1.9% and 100.4 ± 1.3%, respectively, while our TPS to VS was 100.1 ± 1.0%. When comparing the TPS and VS to film measurements, the average percentage pixels passing a 3%/3mm criteria based gamma analysis were 96.6 ± 4.2% and 97 ± 5.6%, respectively. When the VS was compared to the TPS, on average 98.1 ± 5.3% of pixels passed the gamma analysis. Based upon these preliminary results, the VS system should be able to calculate dose adequately as a verification tool of our TPS.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate adaptive daily planning for cervi-cal cancer patients who underwent high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-BT) using comprehensive interfractional organ motion measurements. This study included 22 cervical cancer patients who underwent 5 fractions of HDR-BT. Regions of interest (ROIs) including high-risk clinical tumor volume (HR-CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were manually contoured on daily CT images. All patients were clinically treated with adaptive daily plans (ADP), which involved ROI delineation and dose optimization at each treatment fraction. Single treatment plans (SP) were retrospectively generated by applying the first treatment fraction's dwell times adjusted for decay and dwell positions of the applicator to subsequent treatment fractions. Various existing similarity metrics were calculated for the ROIs to quantify interfractional organ variations. A novel similarity (JRARM) score was established, which combined both volumetric overlap metrics (DSC, JSC, and RVD) and distance metrics (ASD, MSD, and RMSD). Linear regression was performed to determine a relationship between interfractional organ varia-tions of various similarity metrics and D2cc variations from both plans. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to assess ADP and SP by comparing EQD2 D2cc (?/? = 3) for OARs. For interfractional organ variations, the sigmoid demonstrated the greatest variations based on the JRARM, DSC, and RMSD metrics. Comparisons between paired ROIs showed differences in metrics at each treatment fraction. RVD, MSD, and RMSD were found to be significantly correlated to D2cc varia-tions for bladder and sigmoid. The comparison between plans found ADP provided lower EQD2 D2cc of OARs than SP. Specifically, the sigmoid demonstrated sta-tistically significant dose variations (p = 0.015). Substantial interfractional organ motion occurs during HDR-BT based on comprehensive measurements and may significantly affect D2cc of OARs. Adaptive daily planning provides improved dose sparing for OARs compared to single planning with the extent of sparing being different among OARs.

Dataset Information

Brachytherapy treatment planning commissioning: effect of the election of proper bibliography and finite size of TG-43 input data on standard treatments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets