Experimental evaluation of the accuracy of skin dose calculation for a commercial treatment planning system.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Court LE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5721536 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Experimental evaluation of the accuracy of skin dose calculation for a commercial treatment planning system.
Court Laurence E LE Tishler Roy B RB Allen Aaron M AM Xiang Hong H Makrigiorgos Mike M Chin Lee L
Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20080128 1
This work investigates the accuracy of skin dose calculations using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Skin dose was measured using micro-MOSFETs for a range of irradiation conditions (open fields, physical wedges, dynamic wedges, different SSDs) for 6MV and 10MV beams, and compared with the mean dose calculated to a 2mm thick "skin" structure for semi-cylindrical phantoms (representative of a neck or breast). Agreement between the calculated and measured skin dose values was better than +/- ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:For the epidemiological evaluation of long-term side effects of radiotherapy patients, it is important to know the doses to organs and tissues everywhere in the patient. Computed tomography (CT) images of the patients which contain the anatomical information are sometimes available for each treated patient. However, the available CT scans usually cover only the treated volume of the patient including the target and surrounding anatomy. To overcome this limitation, in this work we describe the development of a software tool using the Varian Eclipse Scripting API for extending a partial-body CT to a whole-body representation in the treatment planning system for dose calculation. The whole-body representation is created by fusing the partial-body CT with a similarly sized whole-body computational phantom selected from a library containing 64 phantoms of different heights, weights, and genders. The out-of-field dose is calculated with analytical models from the literature and merged with the treatment planning system-calculated dose. To test the method, the out-of-field dose distributions on the computational phantoms were compared to dose calculations on whole-body patient CTs. The mean doses, D2% and D98% were compared in 26 organs and tissues for 14 different treatment plans in 5 patients using 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, coplanar and non-coplanar techniques. From these comparisons we found that mean relative differences between organ doses ranged from -10% and +20% with standard deviations of up to 40%. The developed method will help epidemiologists and researchers estimate organ doses outside the treated volume when only limited treatment planning CT information is available.
| S-EPMC9948842 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5723477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe currently available treatment planning systems (TPSs) are neither designed nor intended for accurate dose calculations in nontarget regions. The aim of this work is to quantify the accuracy and reliability of nontarget doses calculated by a commercially available TPS.MethodsNontarget doses calculated by the collapsed cone (CC) (v5.2) algorithm implemented in the RayStation (v6) TPS were compared to measured values. Different scenarios were investigated, from simple static fields to intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. Deviations and confidence limits (CLs) were calculated between results of calculations and measurements-applying both local (δ) and global (Δ) normalization-for various points of interest (POIs). Results were based on a single-institution experience for one clinical test case (prostate) and evaluated against internationally accepted criteria.ResultsOverall, the TPS underestimated the nontarget dose by an average of -17.7% ± 25.3% for IMRT. Quantitatively similar results were obtained for VMAT (-17.6% ± 21.2%). POIs receiving < 5% of the prescription dose were significantly underestimated by the TPS (p-value < 0.05 for both IMRT and VMAT). Dose calculation accuracy was also determined by the contribution of secondary radiation, with measured doses for out-of-field POIs being significantly different from calculated values (p-value < 0.01 for both IMRT and VMAT). Although the CLδ in nontarget regions failed the proposed tolerance criteria (40%) for both IMRT (68.8%) and VMAT (52.6%), the CLΔ was within the tolerance limit (4%) for both treatment techniques (1.9% for IMRT and 1.3% for VMAT). No action levels (7%) were exceeded.ConclusionsBased on the currently available benchmarks our TPS is considered acceptable for clinical use, although the dose in some POIs was poorly predicted by the CC algorithm. Some areas were pointed out where TPSs and linear accelerator control systems can be improved.
| S-EPMC10402685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early stage lung cancer is increasingly being treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Several advanced treatment planning algorithms are now available in various commercial treatment planning systems. This work compares the dose distributions calculated for the same treatment plan using, five algorithms, in three different treatment planning systems. All plans were normalized to ensure the prescription dose covers 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). Dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was compared using near-minimum dose (D98%), near-maximum dose (D2%) and dose homogeneity, while dose fall-off was compared using D2cm and R50. Dose to the lung was compared using V5Gy, V20Gy and mean lung dose. Statistical analysis shows that dose distributions calculated using Eclipse's Acuros XB and RayStation's Monte Carlo were significantly different from the other dose distributions for the PTV dose parameters investigated. For lung dosimetric parameters, this difference persisted for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans but not for conformal arc plans. While normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) differences were significant for some of the algorithms for VMAT delivery approaches, they were not significantly different for any algorithm for conformal arc plans. All parameters investigated here were within 5% between all algorithms. The results show that, while some small dosimetric differences can be expected around the PTV, the dose distribution to the rest of the treatment area, especially the lungs, should not be clinically-relevant when switching between one of the five algorithms investigated.
| S-EPMC7406340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MIM Symphony is a recently introduced low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS). We evaluated the dosimetric and planning accuracy of this new TPS compared to the universally used VariSeed TPS. For dosimetric evaluation of the MIM Symphony version 5.4 TPS, we compared dose calculations from the MIM Symphony TPS with the formalism recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 report (TG-43) and those generated by the VariSeed version 8.0 TPS for iodine-125 (I-125; Models 6711 and IAI-125A), palladium-103 (Pd-103; Model 200), and cesium-131 (Cs-131; Model Cs-1). Validation was performed for both line source and point source approximations. As part of the treatment planning validation, first a QA phantom (CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom Model 045 SN#D7210-3) containing three ellipsoid objects with certified volumes was scanned in order to check the volume accuracy of the contoured structures in MIM Symphony. Then the DICOM data containing 100 patient plans from the VariSeed TPS were imported into the MIM Symphony TPS. The 100 plans included 25 each of I-125 pre-implant plans, Pd-103 pre-implant plans, I-125 Day 30 plans (i.e., from 1 month after implantation), and Pd-103 Day 30 plans. The dosimetric parameters (including prostate volume, prostate D90 values, and rectum V100 values) of the 100 plans were calculated independently on the two TPSs. Other TPS tests that were done included verification of source input and geometrical accuracy, data transfer between different planning systems, text printout, 2D dose plots, DVH printout, and template grid accuracy. According to the line source formalism, the dosimetric results between the MIM Symphony TPS and TG-43 were within 0.5% (0.02 Gy) for r > 1 cm. In the line source approximation validation, MIM Symphony TPS values agreed with VariSeed TPS values to within 0.5% (0.09 Gy) for r > 1 cm. Similarly, in point source approximation validation, the MIM Symphony values agreed to within 1% of the TG-43 and VariSeed values for r > 1 cm. The volume calculations obtained from the MIM Symphony TPS for the CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom were within 1% of the actual volume of the phantom. For the clinical cases, the volume and dosimetric parameter calculations for the prostate and rectum did not differ substantially between the pre-implant and Day 30 plans. Overall, our investigations showed negligible differences in dosimetry calculations and planning parameters between the two TPSs. The tests done to check the performance of the MIM Symphony TPS, such as the library data, data transfer, isodose and DVH printout, were found to be satisfactory. On the basis of these results, we conclude that the MIM Symphony TPS can be used as an alternative to the VariSeed TPS for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.
| S-EPMC5690179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAn accurate assessment of out-of-field dose is necessary to estimate the risk of second cancer after radiotherapy and the damage to the organs at risk surrounding the planning target volume. Although treatment planning systems (TPSs) calculate dose distributions outside the treatment field, little is known about the accuracy of these calculations. The aim of this work is to thoroughly compare the out-of-field dose distributions given by two algorithms implemented in the Monaco TPS, with measurements and full Monte Carlo simulations.MethodsOut-of-field dose distributions predicted by the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) and Monte Carlo (MCMonaco ) algorithms, built into the commercially available Monaco version 5.11 TPS, are compared with measurements carried out on an Elekta Axesse linear accelerator. For the measurements, ion chambers, thermoluminescent dosimeters, and EBT3 film are used. The BEAMnrc code, built on the EGSnrc system, is used to create a model of the Elekta Axesse with the Agility collimation system, and the space phase file generated is scored by DOSXYZnrc to generate the dose distributions (MCEGSnrc ). Three different irradiation scenarios are considered: (a) a 10 × 10 cm2 field, (b) an IMRT prostate plan, and (c) a three-field lung plan. Monaco's calculations, experimental measurements, and Monte Carlo simulations are carried out in water and/or in an ICRP110 phantom.ResultsFor the 10 × 10 cm2 field case, CCC underestimated the dose, compared to ion chamber measurements, by 13% (differences relative to the algorithm) on average between the 5% and the ≈2% isodoses. MCMonaco underestimated the dose only from approximately the 2% isodose for this case. Qualitatively similar results were observed for the studied IMRT case when compared to film dosimetry. For the three-field lung plan, dose underestimations of up to ≈90% for MCMonaco and ≈60% for CCC, relative to MCEGSnrc simulations, were observed in mean dose to organs located beyond the 2% isodose.ConclusionsThis work shows that Monaco underestimates out-of-field doses in almost all the cases considered. Thus, it does not describe dose distribution beyond the border of the field accurately. This is in agreement with previously published works reporting similar results for other TPSs. Analytical models for out-of-field dose assessment, MC simulations or experimental measurements may be an adequate alternative for this purpose.
| S-EPMC7586840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop an auto-planning platform to be interfaced with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). The main goal was to obtain robust and high-quality plans for different anatomic sites and various dosimetric requirements.MethodsMonaco (Elekta, St. Louis, US) was the TPS in this work. All input parameters for inverse planning could be defined in a plan template inside Monaco. A software tool called Robot Framework was used to launch auto-planning trials with updated plan templates. The template modifier external to Monaco was the major component of our auto-planning platform. For current implementation, it was a rule-based system that mimics the trial-and-error process of an experienced planner. A template was automatically updated by changing the optimization constraints based on dosimetric evaluation of the plan obtained in the previous trial, along with the data of the iterative optimization extracted from Monaco. Treatment plans generated by Monaco with all plan evaluation criteria satisfied were considered acceptable, and such plans would be saved for further evaluation by clinicians. The auto-planning platform was validated for 10 prostate and 10 head-and-neck cases in comparison with clinical plans generated by experienced planners.ResultsThe performance and robustness of our auto-planning platform was tested with clinical cases of prostate and head and neck treatment. For prostate cases, automatically generated plans had very similar plan quality with the clinical plans, and the bladder volume receiving 62.5 Gy, 50 Gy, and 40 Gy in auto-plans was reduced by 1%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. For head and neck cases, auto-plans had better conformity with reduced dose to the normal structures but slightly higher dose inhomogeneity in the target volume. Remarkably, the maximum dose in the spinal cord and brain stem was reduced by more than 3.5 Gy in auto-plans. Fluence map optimization only with less than 30 trials was adequate to generate acceptable plans, and subsequent optimization for final plans was completed by Monaco without further intervention. The plan quality was weakly dependent on the parameter selection in the initial template and the choices of the step sizes for changing the constraint values.ConclusionAn automated planning platform to interface with Monaco was developed, and our reported tests showed preliminary results for prostate and head and neck cases.
| S-EPMC7286016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To quantify the accuracy of a clinical proton treatment planning system (TPS) as well as Monte Carlo (MC)-based dose calculation through measurements and to assess the clinical impact in a cohort of patients with tumors located in the lung.A lung phantom and ion chamber array were used to measure the dose to a plane through a tumor embedded in the lung, and to determine the distal fall-off of the proton beam. Results were compared with TPS and MC calculations. Dose distributions in 19 patients (54 fields total) were simulated using MC and compared to the TPS algorithm.MC increased dose calculation accuracy in lung tissue compared with the TPS and reproduced dose measurements in the target to within ±2%. The average difference between measured and predicted dose in a plane through the center of the target was 5.6% for the TPS and 1.6% for MC. MC recalculations in patients showed a mean dose to the clinical target volume on average 3.4% lower than the TPS, exceeding 5% for small fields. For large tumors, MC also predicted consistently higher V5 and V10 to the normal lung, because of a wider lateral penumbra, which was also observed experimentally. Critical structures located distal to the target could show large deviations, although this effect was highly patient specific. Range measurements showed that MC can reduce range uncertainty by a factor of ~2: the average (maximum) difference to the measured range was 3.9 mm (7.5 mm) for MC and 7 mm (17 mm) for the TPS in lung tissue.Integration of Monte Carlo dose calculation techniques into the clinic would improve treatment quality in proton therapy for lung cancer by avoiding systematic overestimation of target dose and underestimation of dose to normal lung. In addition, the ability to confidently reduce range margins would benefit all patients by potentially lowering toxicity.
| S-EPMC4028367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In particle therapy treatment planning, dose calculation is conducted using patient-specific maps of tissue ion stopping power ratio (SPR) to predict beam ranges. Improving patient-specific SPR prediction is therefore essential for accurate dose calculation. In this study, we investigated the use of the Spectral CT 7500, a second-generation dual-layer spectral computed tomography (DLCT) system, as an alternative to conventional single-energy CT (SECT) for patient-specific SPR prediction. This dual-energy CT (DECT)-based method allows for the direct prediction of SPR from quantitative measurements of relative electron density and effective atomic number using the Bethe equation, whereas the conventional SECT-based method consists of indirect image data-based prediction through the conversion of calibrated CT numbers to SPR. The performance of the Spectral CT 7500 in particle therapy treatment planning was characterized by conducting a thorough analysis of its SPR prediction accuracy for both tissue-equivalent materials and common non-tissue implant materials. In both instances, DLCT was found to reduce uncertainty in SPR predictions compared to SECT. Mean deviations of 0.7% and 1.6% from measured SPR values were found for DLCT- and SECT-based predictions, respectively, in tissue-equivalent materials. Furthermore, end-to-end analyses of DLCT-based treatment planning were performed for proton, helium, and carbon ion therapies with anthropomorphic head and pelvic phantoms. 3D gamma analysis was performed with ionization chamber array measurements as the reference. DLCT-predicted dose distributions revealed higher passing rates compared to SECT-predicted dose distributions. In the DLCT-based treatment plans, measured distal-edge evaluation layers were within 1 mm of their predicted positions, demonstrating the accuracy of DLCT-based particle range prediction. This study demonstrated that the use of the Spectral CT 7500 in particle therapy treatment planning may lead to better agreement between planned and delivered dose compared to current clinical SECT systems.
| S-EPMC9069208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We present an analytical and experimental study of split shape dose calculation correction by adjusting the position of the round leaf end position in an intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning system. The precise light field edge position (Xtang.p ) was derived from 50% of the central axis dose created by nominal light field using geometry and mathematical methods. Leaf position (Xmlc.p), defined in the treatment planning system for monitor unit calculation, could be derived from Xtang.p. Offset (correction) could be obtained by the position corresponding to 50% of the central axis dose minus the Xmlc.p position. For SSD from 90 cm to 120 cm at 6 MV and 10 MV, the 50% dose position was located outside of Xmlc,p in the MLC leaf position range of +8 cm to -8 cm, where the offset correction positively increased, whereas the offset correction negatively increased when the MLC leaf position was in the range of -12 cm to -8 cm and +20 cm to +8 cm when the 50% position was located inside Xmlc,p. The monitor unit calculation could provide underdosage or overdosage of 7.5% per mm without offset correction. Calibration could be performed at a certain SSD to fit all SSD offset corrections. With careful measurement and an accurate offset correction, it is possible to achieve the dose calculation with 0.5% error for the adjusted MLC leaf edge location in the treatment planning system.
| S-EPMC5718526 | biostudies-literature