Dataset Information

Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose differences introduced by the TMR 10 and the convolution dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10, as compared to the TMR classic algorithm in the previous versions of GammaPlan. Computed axial tomographic images of a polystyrene phantom and a human head were acquired using a GE LightSpeed VCT scanner. A treatment target with a prescription dose of 20 Gy to 50% isodose line was defined in the phantom or the head CT set. The treatment times for single collimator, single shot placements were calculated using the three dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10. Four comparative studies were conducted: i) the dose matrix position was varied every 10 mm along the x-, y-, z-axes of the stereotactic coordinate system inside the phantom and the treatment times were compared on each matrix for the three collimators of the Gamma Knife Perfexion and the four collimators of the 4C;ii) the study was repeated for the human head CT dataset; iii) the matrix position was varied every 20 mm in the X and the Y directions on the central slice (Z = 100mm) of the head CT and the shot times were compared on each matrix for the 8 mm collimator of both units; a total of 51 matrix positions were identified for each unit; iv) the above comparison was repeated for the head CT transverse slices with Z = 20, 40, 60, 80, 120, 140, and 160 mm. A total of 271 matrix positions were studied. Based on the comparison of the treatment times needed to deliver 20 Gy at 50% isodose line, the equivalent TMR classic dose of the TMR 10 algorithm is roughly a constant for each collimator of the 4C unit and is 97.5%, 98.5%, 98%, and 100% of the TMR 10 dose for the 18 mm, 14 mm, 8 mm, and the 4 mm collimators, respectively. The numbers for the three collimators of the Perfexion change with the shot positions in the range from 99% to 102% for both the phantom and the head CT. The minimum, maximum, and the mean values of the equivalent TMR classic doses of the convolution algorithm on the 271 voxels of the head CT are 99.5%, 111.5%, 106.5% of the convolution dose for the Perfexion, and 99%, 109%, 104.5% for the 4C unit. We identified a maximum decrease in delivered dose of 11.5% for treatment in the superior frontal/parietal vertex region of the head CT for older calculations lacking inhomogeneity correction to account for the greater percentage of the average beam path occupied by bone. The differences in the inferior temporal lobe and the cerebellum/neck regions are significantly less, owing to the counter-balancing effects of both bone and the air cavity inhomogeneities. The dose differences between the TMR 10 and the TMR classic are within ± 2.5% for a single shot placement on both Perfexion and 4C. Dose prescriptions based on the experiences with the TMR classic may need to be adjusted to accommodate the up to 11.5% difference between the convolution and the TMR classic.

SUBMITTER: Xu AY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5711097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe accuracy of dose calculation is the prerequisite for CyberKnife (CK) to implement precise stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). In this study, CK-MLC treatment planning for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were compared using finite-size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm, FSPB with lateral scaling option (FSPB_LS) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, respectively. We concentrated on the enhancement of accuracy with the FSPB_LS algorithm over the conventional FSPB algorithm and the dose consistency with the MC algorithm.MethodsIn this study, 54 cases of NSCLC were subdivided into central lung cancer (CLC, n=26) and ultra-central lung cancer (UCLC, n=28). For each patient, we used the FSPB algorithm to generate a treatment plan. Then the dose was recalculated using FSPB_LS and MC dose algorithms based on the plans computed using the FSPB algorithm. The resultant plans were assessed by calculating the mean value of pertinent comparative parameters, including PTV prescription isodose, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose-volume statistics of organs at risk (OARs).ResultsIn this study, most dose parameters of PTV and OARs demonstrated a trend of MC > FSPB_LS > FSPB. The FSPB_LS algorithm aligns better with the dose parameters of the target compared to the MC algorithm, which is particularly evident in UCLC. However, the FSPB algorithm significantly underestimated the does of the target. Regarding the OARs in CLC, differences in dose parameters were observed between FSPB and FSPB_LS for V10 of the contralateral lung, as well as between FSPB and MC for mean dose (Dmean) of the contralateral lung and maximum dose (Dmax) of the aorta, exhibiting statistical differences. There were no statistically significant differences observed between FSPB_LS and MC for the OARs. However, the average dose deviation between FSPB_LS and MC algorithms for OARs ranged from 2.79% to 11.93%. No significant dose differences were observed among the three algorithms in UCLC.ConclusionFor CLC, the FSPB_LS algorithm exhibited good consistency with the MC algorithm in PTV and demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy when compared to the traditional FSPB algorithm. However, the FSPB_LS algorithm and the MC algorithm showed a significant dose deviation in OARs of CLC. In the case of UCLC, FSPB_LS showed better consistency with the MC algorithm than observed in CLC. Notwithstanding, UCLC's OARs were highly sensitive to radiation dose and could result in potentially serious adverse reactions. Consequently, it is advisable to use the MC algorithm for dose calculation in both CLC and UCLC, while the application of FSPB_LS algorithm should be carefully considered.

Project description:PurposePatient-specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time-consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC-based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well-established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle3 ) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements.MethodsFifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%-2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans.ResultsTPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and -0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical 95% clinical tolerance threshold.ConclusionThis work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC-based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC-based secondary patient-specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per-plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols.

Project description:This paper compares the calculated dose to target and normal tissues when using pencil beam (PBC), superposition/convolution (AAA) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for whole breast (WBI) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) treatment plans.Plans for 10 patients who met all dosimetry constraints on a prospective APBI protocol when using PBC calculations were recomputed with AAA and MC, keeping the monitor units and beam angles fixed. Similar calculations were performed for WBI plans on the same patients. Doses to target and normal tissue volumes were tested for significance using the paired Student's t-test.For WBI plans the average dose to target volumes when using PBC calculations was not significantly different than AAA calculations, the average PBC dose to the ipsilateral breast was 10.5% higher than the AAA calculations and the average MC dose to the ipsilateral breast was 11.8% lower than the PBC calculations. For ABPI plans there were no differences in dose to the planning target volume, ipsilateral breast, heart, ipsilateral lung, or contra-lateral lung. Although not significant, the maximum PBC dose to the contra-lateral breast was 1.9% higher than AAA and the PBC dose to the clinical target volume was 2.1% higher than AAA. When WBI technique is switched to APBI, there was significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral breast when using PBC, a significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral lung when using AAA, and a significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral breast and lung and contra-lateral lung when using MC.There is very good agreement between PBC, AAA and MC for all target and most normal tissues when treating with APBI and WBI and most of the differences in doses to target and normal tissues are not clinically significant. However, a commonly used dosimetry constraint, as recommended by the ASTRO consensus document for APBI, that no point in the contra-lateral breast volume should receive >3% of the prescribed dose needs to be relaxed to >5%.

Project description:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been increasingly used as an efficacious treatment modality for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. The accuracy of dose calculations is compromised due to the presence of inhomogeneity. For the purpose of a consistent prescription, radiation doses were calculated without heterogeneity correction in several RTOG trials. For patients participating in these trials, recalculations of the planned doses with more accurate dose methods could provide better correlations between the treatment outcomes and the planned doses. Using a Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm as a gold standard, we compared the recalculated doses with the MC algorithm to the original pencil beam (PB) calculations for our institutional clinical lung SBRT plans. The focus of this comparison is to investigate the volume and location dependence on the differences between the two dose calculations. Thirty-one clinical plans that followed RTOG and other protocol guidelines were retrospectively investigated in this study. Dosimetric parameters, such as D1, D95, and D99 for the PTV and D1 for organs at risk, were compared between two calculations. Correlations of mean lung dose and V20 of lungs between two calculations were investigated. Significant dependence on tumor size and location was observed from the comparisons between the two dose calculation methods. When comparing the PB calculations without heterogeneity correction to the MC calculations with heterogeneity correction, we found that in terms of D95 of PTV: (1) the two calculations resulted in similar D95 for edge tumors with volumes greater than 25.1 cc; (2) an average overestimation of 5% in PB calculations for edge tumors with volumes less than 25.1 cc; and (3) an average overestimation of 9% or underestimation of 3% in PB calculations for island tumors with volumes smaller or greater than 22.6 cc, respectively. With heterogeneity correction, the PB calculations resulted in an average reduction of 23.8% and 15.3% in the D95 for the PTV for island and edge lesions, respectively, when compared to the MC calculations. For organs at risks, very small differences were found among all the comparisons. Excellent correlations for mean dose and V20 of lungs were observed between the two calculations. This study demonstrated that using a single scaling factor may be overly simplified when accounting for the effects of heterogeneity correction. Accurate dose calculations, such as the Monte Carlo algorithms, are highly recommended to understand dose responses in lung SBRT.

Project description:Small fields smaller than 4 × 4 cm2 are used in stereotactic and conformal treatments where heterogeneity is normally present. Since dose calculation accuracy in both small fields and heterogeneity often involves more discrepancy, algorithms used by treatment planning systems (TPS) should be evaluated for achieving better treatment results. This report aims at evaluating accuracy of four model-based algorithms, X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) from Monaco, Superposition (SP) from CMS-Xio, AcurosXB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) from Eclipse are tested against the measurement. Measurements are done using Exradin W1 plastic scintillator in Solid Water phantom with heterogeneities like air, lung, bone, and aluminum, irradiated with 6 and 15 MV photons of square field size ranging from 1 to 4 cm2. Each heterogeneity is introduced individually at two different depths from depth-of-dose maximum (Dmax), one setup being nearer and another farther from the Dmax. The central axis percentage depth-dose (CADD) curve for each setup is measured separately and compared with the TPS algorithm calculated for the same setup. The percentage normalized root mean squared deviation (%NRMSD) is calculated, which represents the whole CADD curve's deviation against the measured. It is found that for air and lung heterogeneity, for both 6 and 15 MV, all algorithms show maximum deviation for field size 1 × 1 cm2 and gradually reduce when field size increases, except for AAA. For aluminum and bone, all algorithms' deviations are less for 15 MV irrespective of setup. In all heterogeneity setups, 1 × 1 cm2 field showed maximum deviation, except in 6MV bone setup. All algorithms in the study, irrespective of energy and field size, when any heterogeneity is nearer to Dmax, the dose deviation is higher compared to the same heterogeneity far from the Dmax. Also, all algorithms show maximum deviation in lower-density materials compared to high-density materials.

Dataset Information

Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets