Dataset Information

Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations.

Acquisition and validation methods

Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment.

Data format and usage notes

Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile.

Potential applications

These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.

SUBMITTER: Glenn MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6980266 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.

Glenn Mallory C MC Peterson Christine B CB Followill David S DS Howell Rebecca M RM Pollard-Larkin Julianne M JM Kry Stephen F SF

Medical physics 20191115 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations.<h4>Acquisition and validation methods</h4>Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic ...[more]

PMID: 31667870

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent research efforts investigating dose escalation techniques for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have demonstrated great benefit when high-dose hypofractionated treatment schemes are implemented. The use of these paradigms emphasizes the importance of smaller treatment margins to avoid high dose to surrounding normal tissue or organs at risk (OARs). However, tighter margins may lead to underdosage of the target due to the presence of organ motion. It is important to characterize organ motion and possibly account for it during treatment delivery. The need for real-time localization of dynamic targets has encouraged the use and development of more continuous motion monitoring systems such as kilo-voltage/fluoroscopic imaging, electromagnetic tracking, and optical monitoring systems.This paper presents the implementation of an algorithm to quantify translational and rotational interfractional and intrafractional prostate motion and compute the dosimetric effects of these motion patterns. The estimated delivered dose is compared with the static plan dose to evaluate the success of delivering the plan in the presence of prostate motion. The method is implemented on a commercial treatment planning system (Pinnacle(3), Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Philips Healthcare) and is termed delivered dose investigational tool (DiDIT). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) is validated by comparisons with previously published results. Finally, different workflows are discussed with respect to the potential use of this tool in clinical treatment planning.The DiDIT dose estimation process took approximately 5-20 min (depending on the number of fractions analyzed) on a Pinnacle(3) 9.100 research version running on a Dell M90 system (Dell, Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA) equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The DiDIT implementation in Pinnacle(3) was found to be in agreement with previously published results, on the basis of the percent dose difference (PDD). This metric was also utilized to compare plan dose versus delivered dose, for prostate targets in three clinically acceptable treatment plans.This paper presents results from the implementation of an algorithm on a commercially available treatment planning system that quantifies the dosimetric effects of interfractional and intrafractional motion in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. The implementation of this algorithm within a commercial treatment planning system such as Pinnacle(3) enables easy deployment in the existing clinical workflow. The results of the PDD tests validate the implementation of the DiDIT algorithm in Pinnacle(3), in comparison with previously published results.

Project description:We evaluate a photon convolution-superposition algorithm used to model a fast neutron therapy beam in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). The neutron beam modeled was the Clinical Neutron Therapy System (CNTS) fast neutron beam produced by 50 MeV protons on a Be target at our facility, and we implemented the Pinnacle3 dose calculation model for computing neutron doses. Measured neutron data were acquired by an IC30 ion chamber flowing 5 cc/min of tissue equivalent gas. Output factors and profile scans for open and wedged fields were measured according to the Pinnacle physics reference guide recommendations for photon beams in a Wellhofer water tank scanning system. Following the construction of a neutron beam model, computed doses were then generated using 100 monitor units (MUs) beams incident on a water-equivalent phantom for open and wedged square fields, as well as multileaf collimator (MLC)-shaped irregular fields. We compared Pinnacle dose profiles, central axis doses, and off-axis doses (in irregular fields) with 1) doses computed using the Prism treatment planning system, and 2) doses measured in a water phantom and having matching geometry to the computation setup. We found that the Pinnacle photon model may be used to model most of the important dosimetric features of the CNTS fast neutron beam. Pinnacle-calculated dose points among open and wedged square fields exhibit dose differences within 3.9 cGy of both Prism and measured doses along the central axis, and within 5 cGy difference of measurement in the penumbra region. Pinnacle dose point calculations using irregular treatment type fields showed a dose difference up to 9 cGy from measured dose points, although most points of comparison were below 5 cGy. Comparisons of dose points that were chosen from cases planned in both Pinnacle and Prism show an average dose difference less than 0.6%, except in certain fields which incorporate both wedges and heavy blocking of the central axis. All clinical cases planned in both Prism and Pinnacle were found to be comparable in terms of dose-volume histograms and spatial dose distribution following review by the treating clinicians. Variations were considered minor and within clinically acceptable limits by the treating clinicians. The Pinnacle TPS has sufficient computational modeling ability to adequately produce a viable neutron model for clinical use in treatment planning.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The newest release of the Eclipse (Varian) treatment planning system (TPS) includes an optimizing engine for Elekta volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this new algorithm and to compare it to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for various disease sites by creating single- and double-arc VMAT plans. METHODS: A total of 162 plans were evaluated in this study, including 38 endometrial, 57 head and neck, 12 brain, 10 breast and 45 prostate cancer cases. The real-life IMRT plans were developed during routine clinical cases using the TPS Eclipse. VMAT plans were generated using a preclinical version of Eclipse with tumor-region-specific optimizing templates without interference of the operator: with one full arc (1A) and with two full arcs (2A), and with partial arcs for breast and prostate with hip implant cases. All plans were evaluated based on target coverage, homogeneity and conformity. The organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed according to plan objectives, such as the mean and maximum doses. If one or more objectives were exceeded, the plan was considered clinically unacceptable, and a second VMAT plan was created by adapting the optimization penalties once. RESULTS: Compared to IMRT, single- and double-arc VMAT plans showed comparable or better results concerning the target coverage: the maximum dose in the target for 1A is the same as that for IMRT; for 2A, an average reduction of 1.3% over all plans was observed. The conformity showed a statistically significant improvement for both 1A (+3%) and 2A (+6%). The mean total body dose was statistically significant lower for the considered arc techniques (IMRT: 16.0?Gy, VMAT: 15.3?Gy, p?<?0.001). However, the sparing of OARs shows individual behavior that depends strongly on the different tumor regions. A clear difference is found in the number of monitor units (MUs) per plan: VMAT shows a reduction of 31%. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that based on optimizing templates with minimal interaction of the operator, the Eclipse TPS is able to achieve a plan quality for the Elekta VMAT delivery technique that is comparable to that of fixed-field IMRT. Plans with two arcs show better dose distributions than plans with one arc.

Project description:Background:Proton pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms have limited accuracy within heterogeneous tissues of lung cancer patients, which may be addressed by modern commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. We investigated clinical pencil beam scanning (PBS) dose differences between PB and MC-based treatment planning for lung cancer patients. Methods:With IRB approval, a comparative dosimetric analysis between RayStation MC and PB dose engines was performed on ten patient plans. PBS gantry plans were generated using single-field optimization technique to maintain target coverage under range and setup uncertainties. Dose differences between PB-optimized (PBopt), MC-recalculated (MCrecalc), and MC-optimized (MCopt) plans were recorded for the following region-of-interest metrics: clinical target volume (CTV) V95, CTV homogeneity index (HI), total lung V20, total lung VRX (relative lung volume receiving prescribed dose or higher), and global maximum dose. The impact of PB-based and MC-based planning on robustness to systematic perturbation of range (±3% density) and setup (±3 mm isotropic) was assessed. Pairwise differences in dose parameters were evaluated through non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon sign-rank testing. Results:In this ten-patient sample, CTV V95 decreased significantly from 99-100% for PBopt to 77-94% for MCrecalc and recovered to 99-100% for MCopt (P<10-5). The median CTV HI (D95/D5) decreased from 0.98 for PBopt to 0.91 for MCrecalc and increased to 0.95 for MCopt (P<10-3). CTV D95 robustness to range and setup errors improved under MCopt (?D95 =-1%) compared to MCrecalc (?D95 =-6%, P=0.006). No changes in lung dosimetry were observed for large volumes receiving low to intermediate doses (e.g., V20), while differences between PB-based and MC-based planning were noted for small volumes receiving high doses (e.g., VRX). Global maximum patient dose increased from 106% for PBopt to 109% for MCrecalc and 112% for MCopt (P<10-3). Conclusions:MC dosimetry revealed a reduction in target dose coverage under PB-based planning that was regained under MC-based planning along with improved plan robustness. MC-based optimization and dose calculation should be integrated into clinical planning workflows of lung cancer patients receiving actively scanned proton therapy.

Dataset Information

Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.

Purpose

Acquisition and validation methods

Data format and usage notes

Potential applications

Publications

Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure