Dataset Information

The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans.

ABSTRACT: 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%.

SUBMITTER: Basran PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3016285 | biostudies-other | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans.

Basran Parminder S PS Zavgorodni Sergei S Berrang Tanya T Olivotto Ivo A IA Beckham Wayne W

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20101216

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 calculat ...[more]

PMID: 21162739

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeQuality assessment of the treatment plans in the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) HYPO trial was carried out based on prospectively reported dosimetric parameters and evidence-based dose constraints for whole breast radiation therapy were derived.Materials and methodsFrom 2009 to 2014, 1882 patients (pts) were randomised between 50 Gy/25fractions (fr) versus 40 Gy/15fr. Doses to CTVp_breast (V95%, V107%-V110%, Dmax, and in addition for 40 Gy plans V105%-V107%), ipsilateral lung (V20Gy/V17Gy), heart (V20Gy/V17Gy, V40Gy/V35Gy), and left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) (Dmax) and use of respiratory gated technique were prospectively reported to the DBCG database. After end of accrual, these dosimetric parameters from all plans in the trial were compared to the pre-specified treatment constraints.ResultsIn total, 1854 pts from eight radiation therapy (RT) centres in three countries were treated. No statistically significant differences were found between the results for 40 Gy and 50 Gy plans, except for CTVp_breast hot-spot volume (V107%-V110%). Of the 40 Gy pts, 90% with CTVp_breast > 600 mL and 95% with CTVp_breast ≤ 600 mL had a CTVp_breast hot-spot volume (V105%-V107%) <2%. In 95% of the 50 Gy plans, the CTVp_breast absolute hot-spot volume (V107%-V110%) was <0.5 mL and 1.7 mL for CTVp_breast ≤ 600 mL and > 600 mL, respectively. Compliance was >99% for both heart and lung constraints. Largest deviation from protocol constraints was found for the volume of CTVp_breast covered with 95% of the prescription dose or more (V95%). The CTV dose coverage (V95%) was >94.3% in 95% of the right-sided pts, whereas the figures for 95% of the left-sided pts treated with and without respiratory gating were 93.2% and 88.8%, respectively.ConclusionA high degree of compliance with protocol dose constraints was found for treatment plans in the DBCG HYPO trial. New constraints for dose to organs at risk and high-dose volumes in the breast are suggested for breast-only RT planning.

Project description: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.

Project description:The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan.AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

Project description:PurposeWomen with biologically favorable early-stage breast cancer are increasingly treated with accelerated partial breast radiation (PBI). However, treatment-related morbidities have been linked to the large postoperative treatment volumes required for external beam PBI. Relative to external beam delivery, alternative PBI techniques require equipment that is not universally available. To address these issues, we designed a phase 1 trial utilizing widely available technology to 1) evaluate the safety of a single radiation treatment delivered preoperatively to the small-volume, intact breast tumor and 2) identify imaging and genomic markers of radiation response.Methods and materialsWomen aged ≥55 years with clinically node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive, and/or progesterone receptor-positive HER2-, T1 invasive carcinomas, or low- to intermediate-grade in situ disease ≤2 cm were enrolled (n=32). Intensity modulated radiation therapy was used to deliver 15 Gy (n=8), 18 Gy (n=8), or 21 Gy (n=16) to the tumor with a 1.5-cm margin. Lumpectomy was performed within 10 days. Paired pre- and postradiation magnetic resonance images and patient tumor samples were analyzed.ResultsNo dose-limiting toxicity was observed. At a median follow-up of 23 months, there have been no recurrences. Physician-rated cosmetic outcomes were good/excellent, and chronic toxicities were grade 1 to 2 (fibrosis, hyperpigmentation) in patients receiving preoperative radiation only. Evidence of dose-dependent changes in vascular permeability, cell density, and expression of genes regulating immunity and cell death were seen in response to radiation.ConclusionsPreoperative single-dose radiation therapy to intact breast tumors is well tolerated. Radiation response is marked by early indicators of cell death in this biologically favorable patient cohort. This study represents a first step toward a novel partial breast radiation approach. Preoperative radiation should be tested in future clinical trials because it has the potential to challenge the current treatment paradigm and provide a path forward to identify radiation response biomarkers.

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.

Dataset Information

The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans.

Publications

The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets