Improved peripheral dose calculation accuracy for a small MLC field brought by the latest commercial treatment planning system

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. L. Chow ◽  
G. N. Grigorov ◽  
R. Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
New Physics ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Water Tank ◽  
Peripheral Dose ◽  
Dose Profile ◽  
Different Depths ◽  
Diagonal Axis

A recently released Pinnacle treatment planning system software, v7.4f includes some new physics features such as modeling of the rounded multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf ends and the tongue-and-groove structure between leaves. In this study, the above physics modeling improvements were verified by comparing the peripheral dose profiles for the small MLC fields calculated by the new Pinnacle v7.4f and the old Pinnacle v6.2b with those obtained from measurements experimentally. Three test MLC fields with different jaw sizes were prepared, and specific dose profiles (along cross-line, in-line and diagonal axis) at different depths were measured using a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator with 120-leaf Millennium MLC, big scanning water tank and photon diode. Estimated dose profiles for the test fields were calculated using Pinnacle v6.2b and v7.4f. By comparing the measured and calculated results, it was found that both v6.2b and v7.4f performed well in calculating the cross-line (along the gap between the longitudinal lengths of two leaves) and diagonal axis dose profiles at different depths. However, v7.4f gave calculated dose values closer to the measured field for in-line (gap between junctions of two rounded leaf ends) axis dose profiles at different depths. For the shape of the profile along the in-line axis, v7.4f calculated a flat “platform” dose profile of about 34.3% (inter-bank leakage) at depth dmax> beyond the MLC field edge using a clinical dose grid size of 0.4×0.4×0.4cm3, compared to the “zigzag” dose profile varying between 35.4% and 42.1% measured using the water tank and diode. However, both Pinnacle v6.2b and v7.4f calculated the percentage depth dose for the test fields well compared to the measurements.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a treatment planning system developed for clinical boron neutron capture therapy and validation against an independent Monte Carlo dose calculation system

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naonori Hu ◽  
Hiroki Tanaka ◽  
Ryo Kakino ◽  
Syuushi Yoshikawa ◽  
Mamoru Miyao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Neutron Capture ◽  
Gamma Ray ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Neutron Capture Therapy ◽  
Boron Neutron Capture ◽  
Monte Carlo Dose Calculation

AbstractBoron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, and recurrent carcinoma of the head and neck cancer has been approved by the Japanese government for reimbursement under the national health insurance as of June 2020. A new treatment planning system for clinical BNCT has been developed by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Sumitomo), NeuCure® Dose Engine. To safely implement this system for clinical use, the simulated neutron flux and gamma ray dose rate inside a water phantom was compared against experimental measurements. Furthermore, to validate and verify the new planning system, the dose distribution inside an anthropomorphic head phantom was compared against a BNCT treatment planning system SERA and an in-house developed Monte Carlo dose calculation program. The simulated results closely matched the experimental results, within 5% for the thermal neutron flux and 10% for the gamma ray dose rate. The dose distribution inside the head phantom closely matched with SERA and the in-house developed dose calculation program, within 3% for the tumour and a difference of 0.3 Gyw for the brain.

scholarly journals Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
You Zhang ◽  
Tsuicheng Chiu ◽  
Jeffrey Dubas ◽  
Zhen Tian ◽  
Pam Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Laryngeal Cancer ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Monte Carlo Algorithm ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife. Materials & methods Ten larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife’s large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units. Results Phantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences. Conclusions Gantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document