Dosimetric comparison of TMR10 and convolution dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan treatment planning system

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-97
Author(s):  
Ethan Kendall ◽  
Ozer Algan ◽  
Yong Chen ◽  
Salahuddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Gamma Knife ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Calculation Algorithm ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithm ◽  
Convolution Algorithm ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Clinically Significant

AbstractAims:In this article, our goal is to compare the TMR10 and convolution dose calculation algorithm in GammaPlan used in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatments with Gamma Knife and to assess if the algorithms produce clinically significant differences.Materials and methods:Treatment plans were analysed from ten patients who have undergone Gamma Knife SRS treatments. Patient plans were retrospectively recalculated using Lesksell GammaPlan 10 treatment software utilising the TMR10 and convolution dose calculation algorithms in order to create a paired dataset for comparison. Evaluation was based on the dose volume histogram (parameters of minimum, mean, maximum and integral doses.Results:The ratios of average integral doses calculated by the convolution dose calculation algorithm to the average integral doses calculated by the TMR10 algorithm are 0·997 for the target (p=0·028), 1·048 (p=0·48) for the skull and 1·005 (p=0·68) for the brainstem.Conclusions:Although doses calculated with the convolution algorithm resulted in slightly higher mean integral doses for the brainstem and skull critical structures when compared to that of TMR10 doses, these results were not statistically or clinically significant. Thus we continue to use the TMR10 algorithm at our clinic.

scholarly journals Dosimetric Accuracy Comparison between ACUROSE XB, AAA and PBC Dose Calculation Algorithms in EclipseTM TPS Using a Heterogeneous Phantom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arezoo Rooshenas ◽  
Somayeh Gholami ◽  
Mehdi Salehi Barough ◽  
Ehsan Mohammadi
Keyword(s):  
Heterogeneous Media ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Accuracy Comparison ◽  
Dosimetric Accuracy ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Calculated Dose ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Heterogeneous Tissues

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of different algorithms in EclipseTM Treatment Planning System (TPS) using a heterogeneous phantom. Materials and Methods: The method is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's TEC-DOC 1583 report. The chest phantom of CIRS, PTW30010 ionization chamber and an electrometer (PTW, Freiburg) were used for the measurements. Three ACUROSE XB (AXB), Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) dose calculation algorithms available in Eclipse TM TPS were considered in this study. Results: Based on the measurements, the maximum differences between calculated dose by TPS and measured dose in TEC-DOC 1583 tests were 2.5%, 8.6% and 16.1% for the AXB, AAA and PBC algorithms in heterogeneous media, respectively. Conclusion: The Acuros XB algorithm has superior accuracy to predict the dose distribution in the heterogeneous tissues such as lung compared to AAA and PBC algorithms

Investigation of central electrode artefacts of ionisation chamber effect on dose calculation using advanced calculation algorithms AAA and Acuros XB

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
V. S. Shaiju ◽  
Rajesh Kumar ◽  
K. V. Rajasekhar ◽  
George Zacharia ◽  
Debjani Phani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Central Electrode ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Ionisation Chamber ◽  
Electrode Artefact

Abstract Aim: To investigate the central electrode artefact effect of different ion chambers in the verification phantom using the dose calculation algorithms Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB. Materials and methods: The dosimetric study was conducted using an in-house fabricated polymethyl methacrylate head phantom. The treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated doses in the phantom with detectors were compared against the dummy detector fillets using AAA and Acuros XB algorithm. The planned and measured doses were compared for the study. Results: The mean percentage variation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans using Acuros XB and the measurement in the head phantom are statistically significant (p-value = 0.001) for FC65 and CC13 chambers. In small volume chambers (A14SL and CC01), the measured and TPS-calculated dose shows a good agreement. Findings: The study confirmed the CT set of the phantom with detectors (FC65 and CC13) give more artefacts/heterogeneity caused a significant variation in dose calculation using Acuros XB. Therefore, the study suggests a method of using phantom CT set with the dummy detector for mean dose calculation for the Acuros XB algorithm.

Characterising intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) software following upgrades in a commercial treatment planning system

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor McGarry ◽  
Monica O’Toole ◽  
Vivian Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Calculation Algorithm ◽  
Inverse Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithm ◽  
Planning Software ◽  
One Step

AbstractWhen upgrading treatment planning software, it is important to understand and characterise any changes that may have been made to the system. This includes inverse treatment planning and dose optimisation software used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A systematic and practical approach to characterising dose optimisation software following upgrades is presented based on a planning study of six IMRT prostate cases using the commercial treatment planning system Oncentra Masterplan (OMP). Upgrades included general changes in the fluence to multileaf collimator (MLC) segmentation algorithm, a change from a two-step to a one-step optimisation method and an upgrade of the dose calculation algorithm. Post upgrade changes in plan parameters such as calculation times, monitor units, segments and target doses were analysed. A 32% reduction in total calculated monitor units was observed following the general software upgrade. A smaller 12% reduction was observed when using the optional one-step optimisation method rather than a two-step process using a classic dose calculation algorithm. An increase in monitor units of approximately 12% was observed when changing to an enhanced dose calculation algorithm. The enhanced dose calculation algorithm accounted for MLC type, leakage and source size unlike the previous classic dose calculation algorithm. Differences in dose to volumes between fluence segmentation and final dose calculation varied between versions. These differences were found to be minimal for the most recent treatment planning system version. Repeatability tests revealed a more effective use of the system. The characterisation of the effects of treatment planning software upgrades allowed a better appreciation of IMRT planning and delivery attributes. Although this work is based on one commercial inverse treatment planning system, it would be easily transferable to other systems as the underlying system principles are the same.

Comparison of CCC and ETAR dose calculation algorithms in pituitary adenoma radiation treatment planning; Monte Carlo evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Tanha ◽  
S. R. Mahdavi ◽  
G. Geraily
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Pituitary Adenoma ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

AbstractAimsTo verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.Materials and methodsAfter validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar field technique. This technique uses 30 degree physical wedge and 18 MV photon beams.ResultsDose distribution findings showed significant difference between ETAR and CCC of delivered dose in pituitary irradiation. The differences between MC and dose calculation algorithms were 6.40 ± 3.44% for CCC and 10.36 ± 4.37% for ETAR. None of the algorithms could predict actual dose in air cavity areas in comparison to the MC method.ConclusionsDifference between calculation and true dose value affects radiation treatment outcome and normal tissue complication probability. It is of prime concern to select appropriate treatment planning system according to our clinical situation. It is further emphasised that MC can be the method of choice for clinical dose calculation algorithms verification.

scholarly journals Comparison of Different Algorithms in the Radiotherapy Plans of Breast Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 01048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonca Yahşi Çelen ◽  
Atilla Evcin
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Portal Dosimetry ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
The Mean

It is aimed to evaluate portal dosimetry results of planned breast cancer patients with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (YART) of Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) dose calculation algorithms. The plans of 10 treated patients will receive 6 MV photon energy and a total of 25 fractions of 50 Gray dose using the inverse YART technique, which is reverse planned in the Eclipse (ver.13.6) treatment planning system with Varian Trilogy Linear Accelerator prescribing. For each plan, dose was calculated after optimization using PBC and then AAA algorithms. The quality controls of the plans were made using the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) by creating individual verification plans for each algorithm. In addition, the maximum and average dose values in the target volume were compared in inverse YART plans calculated using PBC and AAA. When treatment plans generated by AAA and PBC dose calculation algorithms are analyzed using EPID, for the PBC algorithm, the mean values of VArea and VAvg are 98.15 ± 1.07, 0.40 ± 0.048 and 98.72 ± 1.13, 0.37 ± 0.051, respectively, for the AAA algorithm. The PTV Dmax value for the PBC algorithm is 109.3 ± 1.09 and the DAvg value is 101.7 ± 0.51. For the AAA algorithm, the PTV Dmax value is 110.6 ± 1.12 and the DAvg value is 102.9 ± 0.62. When the mean values of portal dosimetry VArea and VAvg evaluated using PBC and AAA algorithms were compared, the differences between the algorithms were not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Differences between the algorithms for PTV Dmax and DAvg values are not statistically significant (p> 0.05).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document