Dataset Information

Limited accuracy of dose calculation for large fields at deep depths using the BrainSCAN v5.21 treatment planning system.

ABSTRACT: The Varian 120 multileaf collimator (MLC) has a leaf thickness of 5 mm projected at the isocenter plane and can deliver a radiation beam of large field size (up to 30 cm) to be used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Often the dose must be delivered to depths greater than 20 cm. Therefore, during the commissioning of the BrainSCAN v5.21 or any radiation treatment-planning (RTP) systems, extensive testing of dose and monitor unit calculations must encompass the field sizes (1 cm to 30 cm) and the prescription depths (1 cm to 20 cm). Accordingly, the central-axis percent depth doses (PDDs) and off-axis percentage profiles must be measured at several depths for various field sizes. The data for this study were acquired with a 6-MV X-ray beam from a Varian 2100EX LINAC with a water phantom at a source-to-surface distance (SSD) of 100 cm. These measurements were also used to generate a photon beam module, based on a photon pencil beam dose-calculation algorithm with a fast-Fourier transform method. To commission the photon beam module used in our BrainSCAN RTP system, we performed a quantitative comparison of measured and calculated central-axis depth doses and off-axis profiles. Utilizing the principles of dose difference and distance-to-agreement introduced by Van Dyk et al. [Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993; 26:261-273], agreements between calculated and measured doses are <2% and <2 mm for the regions of low- and high-dose gradients, respectively. However, large errors (up to approximately 5% and approximately 7% for 20-cm and 30-cm fields, respectively, at the depth 20 cm) were observed for monitor unit calculations. For a given field size, the disagreement increased with the depth. Similarly, for a given depth the disagreement also increase with the field size. These large systematic errors were caused by using the tissue maximum ratio (TMR) in BrainSCAN v5.21 without considering increased field size as depth increased. These errors have been reported to BrainLAB.

SUBMITTER: Hsi WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5723477 | biostudies-literature | 2005

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Limited accuracy of dose calculation for large fields at deep depths using the BrainSCAN v5.21 treatment planning system.

Hsi Wen C WC Zhang Yunkai Y Kirk Michael C MC Bernard Damian D Chu James C H JC

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20050519 2

The Varian 120 multileaf collimator (MLC) has a leaf thickness of 5 mm projected at the isocenter plane and can deliver a radiation beam of large field size (up to 30 cm) to be used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Often the dose must be delivered to depths greater than 20 cm. Therefore, during the commissioning of the BrainSCAN v5.21 or any radiation treatment-planning (RTP) systems, extensive testing of dose and monitor unit calculations must encompass the field sizes (1 cm to 30 cm ...[more]

PMID: 15940208

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS.MethodsAll treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24-pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue-like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm3 was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated.ResultsInside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone-lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes.ConclusionThe pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk.

Project description:PurposeFor stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), accurate evaluation of dose-volume metrics for small structures is necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the DVH metric capabilities of five commercially available SRS DVH analysis tools (Eclipse, Elements, Raystation, MIM, and Velocity).MethodsDICOM RTdose and RTstructure set files created using MATLAB were imported and evaluated in each of the tools. Each structure set consisted of 50 randomly placed spherical targets. The dose distributions were created on a 1-mm grid using an analytic model such that the dose-volume metrics of the spheres were known. Structure sets were created for 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 mm diameter spheres. The reported structure volume, V100% [cc], and V50% [cc], and the RTOG conformity index and Paddick Gradient Index, were compared with the analytical values.ResultsThe average difference and range across all evaluated target sizes for the reported structure volume was - 4.73%[-33.2,0.2], 0.11%[-10.9, 9.5], -0.39%[-12.1, 7.0], -2.24%[-21.0, 1.3], and 1.15%[-15.1,0.8], for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. The average difference and range for the V100%[cc] (V20Gy[cc]) was - 0.4[-24.5,9.8], -2.73[-23.6, 1.1], -3.01[-23.6, 0.6], -3.79[-27.3, 1.3], and 0.26[-6.1,2.6] for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. For V50%[cc](V10Gy[cc]) in TPS-A through TPS-E the average and ranger were - 0.05[-0.8,0.4], -0.18[-1.2, 0.5], -0.44[-1.4, 0.3], -0.26[-1.8, 2.6], and 0.09[-1.4,2.7].ConclusionThis study expanded on the previously published literature to quantitatively compare the DVH analysis capabilities of software commonly used for SRS plan evaluation and provides freely available and downloadable analytically derived set of ground truth DICOM dose and structure files for the use of radiotherapy clinics. The differences between systems highlight the need for standardization and/or transparency between systems, especially when evaluating plan quality for multi-institutional clinical trials.

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.

Project description:PurposeIn intra-arterial hepatic radioembolization using Holmium-166 (166 Ho) microspheres, a predicted lung-absorbed dose of more than 30 Gy is a contraindication for therapy. Therefore, scout imaging by means of quantitative SPECT of the lungs after a low-dose pretreatment session is essential. Earlier we showed the superiority of Monte Carlo-based iterative SPECT reconstructions over conventional reconstructions due to its quantitative nature, required for dosimetry, at the cost of substantial computation times. In clinical routine, however, the limited available time between scout imaging and therapy constrains its application. To reduce computation times, we investigated the minimum number of iterations required to guarantee a clinical acceptable accuracy in lung dose estimation using patient and phantom data.Methods166 Ho scout SPECT data (range: 222-283 MBq) were used from 10 patients. SPECT images were Monte Carlo-based OSEM reconstructed (effective iterations: 240). Additionally, the 4D XCAT anthropomorphic phantom was used to mimic studies with an injected scout activity of 250 MBq and with varying lung-absorbed doses ranging from 0.9 to 225 Gy for a therapeutic dosage of 15 GBq. These studies were reconstructed in the same way as the patient data, and were also reconstructed using a clinically available, standard OSEM algorithm for comparison. Lung-absorbed dose was determined using VOI analysis as a function of iterations.ResultsThe estimated lung-absorbed dose in nine patients ranged upon MC-based OSEM convergence from 0 to 0.26 Gy for a therapeutic dosage. One patient had an estimated lung absorbed-dose for a therapeutic dosage of 20.3 Gy upon MC-based OSEM convergence, or 18.4 Gy after 40 iterations (-9%). The phantom data showed that the lung-absorbed dose upon OSEM convergence was underestimated by 15% as compared to the actual simulated lung dose, and the dose after 40 iterations was underestimated by 9% as compared to the dose upon convergence. Both underestimations were irrespective of the magnitude of the lung-absorbed dose (0.9 to 225 Gy) and thus can be easily corrected for. The quantitative accuracy of the MC-based OSEM reconstructions (40 iterations, before convergence) outperformed the clinical OSEM reconstruction while estimating the lung dose.ConclusionsThe number of effective iterations necessary for quantitative estimation of the lung dose using MC-based OSEM can be reduced from 240 to 40. The resulting sixfold reduction in calculation time enables processing of the scout images before therapy administration.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of oral contrast agents (OCAs) on dosimetry have not been studied in detail. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the influence of OCAs on dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for rectal cancer.MethodsFrom 2008 to 2016, computed tomography (CT) images were obtained from 33 rectal cancer patients administered OCA with or without intravenous contrast agent (ICA) and 14 patients who received no contrast agent. CT numbers of organs at risk were recorded and converted to electronic densities. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were designed before and after the original densities were replaced with non-enhanced densities. Doses to the planned target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were compared between the plans.ResultsOCA significantly increased the mean and maximum densities of the bowels, while the effects of ICA on these parameters depended on the blood supply of the organs. With OCA, the actual doses for PTV were significantly higher than planned and doses to the bowel increased significantly although moderately. However, the increase in the volume receiving a high-range doses was substantial (the absolute change of intestine volume receiving ≥52 Gy: 1.46 [0.05-3.99, cubic centimeter range: -6.74 to 128.12], the absolute change of colon volume receiving ≥50 Gy: 0.34 [0.01-1.53 cc, range: -0.08 to 3.80 cc]. Dose changes due to ICA were insignificant. Pearson correlation showed that dose changes were significantly correlated with a high intestinal volume within or near the PTV (ρ > 0.5, P < 0.05) and with the density of enhanced intestine (ρ > 0.3, P < 0.05).ConclusionsContrast agents applied in simulation cause underestimation of doses in actual treatment. The overdose due to ICA was slight, while that due to OCA was moderate. The bowel volume receiving ≥50Gy was dramatically increased when OCA within the bowel was absent. Physicians should be aware of these issues if the original plan is barely within clinical tolerance or if a considerable volume of enhanced intestine is within or near the PTV.

Dataset Information

Limited accuracy of dose calculation for large fields at deep depths using the BrainSCAN v5.21 treatment planning system.

Publications

Limited accuracy of dose calculation for large fields at deep depths using the BrainSCAN v5.21 treatment planning system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure