scholarly journals Dosimetric Study of Breast Scar Marker in Different Radiotherapy Dose Calculation Algorithms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. S Abdullah ◽  
Ahmed Alsadig ◽  
A. Sulieman ◽  
Isam H. Mattar ◽  
C. K. Ying ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Scar Marker ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Radiochromic Film ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Collapsed Cone ◽  
Ct Simulation ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

AbstractThe purpose to this work is to validate and benchmark the delivered dose accuracy during radiotherapy treatment (without marker at scar site) to the dose calculated by treatment planning that included a marker on scar site. Dose distributions in breast cancer 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning (3D CRT) calculated with Pencil Beam (PB) and Collapsed Cone (CC) algorithms of commercial treatment planning system (Monaco and Oncentra MasterPlan) was compared as photon beam through homogenous and heterogenous media (by placing marker on phantom surface) to evaluate the perturbation of photon beam. Radiochromic film dose distribution value was compared to the dose calculated by CC algorithm of Monaco and Oncentra MasterPlan (OMP) Treatment Planning Systems (TPS) and PB algorithm of OMP TPS. During Computed Tomography (CT) simulation procedure for breast case, a metal-based scar marker (wire) was used to localize the tumour bed during treatment planning procedure which the phantom was considered as heterogeneous medium. In homogenous medium, PB algorithm gave smaller dose deviation compared to CC algorithm. When wire was introduced to the surface of phantom, PB algorithm (6.0 cGy) gave higher dose deviation compared to CC algorithm (2.0 cGy). However, CC algorithm (plasticine: 7.0 cGy and cable: 7.3 cGy) shows higher dose deviation compared to PB algorithm (plasticine: 6.3 cGy and cable: 6.6 cGy) when Plasticine and Cable marker were introduced. The placement of marker in lateral orientation gave smaller perturbation to megavoltage photon beam compared to axial orientation in overall case. Moreover, wire and plasticine are suitable as a scar marker due to its tissue equivalent density with less perturbation to photon beam.

scholarly journals Analyzing the Treatment Delivery Accuracy of the uRT Treatment Planning System and uRT-Linac 506C by Use of AAPM TG 119 Test Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
DaZhen Jiang ◽  
Dajiang Wang ◽  
Jiuling Shen ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Cheng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Maximum Deviation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Photon Beams ◽  
Position Accuracy ◽  
Collapsed Cone ◽  
Beam Mode

Abstract ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate accuracy of the United Imaging Healthcare's uRT treatment planning system (uRT-TPS), by creating AAPM TG 119 test plans with respectively IMRT and VMAT techniques by homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom. Materials and MethodsThe plans were delivered to the homogeneous and heterogeneous phantom using the United Imaging Healthcare's uRT-Linac 506C. The overall dose calculation accuracy by uRT-TPS with Collapsed Cone Convolution (CC) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm was measured and analyzed by creating IMRT and VMAT plans for the 5 test geometries specified in TG 119, by using two kinds of beams FF photon beam and FFF photon beam. The point doses were measured with a Farmer type ion chamber and the fluences were measured with films respectively. Results The result of position accuracy was shown that the worst position accuracy is 0.36 mm and the repeated positioning accuracy of MLC field location was less than 0.25mm. The symmetry deviation of MLC was less than 0.08mm. In this study, the CLs of sMLC, dMLC and VMAT plans with FF photon beams were 2.74%, 2.12%, and 1.36% respectively. As for FFF photon beams, they were 3.76%, 2.14% and 2.90% respectively, whereas the counterpart CL specified in TG119 were 4.5% for the high dose regions and 4.7% for OAR regions. The CLs of Gamma Passing rates for sMLC, dMLC and VMAT plans were 4.59%, 5.35% and 2.15% for FF beam mode, and were 1.82%, 6.12% and 4.82% for FFF beam mode. For the heterogeneous phantom, the maximum deviation is 2.35% for CC and 2.63% for MC algorithm respectively.Conclusion Based on this analysis which were performed in accordance with the TG 119 recommendations, it is evident that the URT treatment planning system and URT-Linac 506C have commissioned IMRT and VMAT techniques with adequate accuracy. and all uRT_TPS treatment plans were recognized as clinically acceptable.

scholarly journals Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1107) ◽  
pp. 20190304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Nystrom ◽  
Maria Fuglsang Jensen ◽  
Petra Witt Nystrom
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Computational Thinking ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Biological Efficiency ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Computerized Treatment

Treatment planning is the process where the prescription of the radiation oncologist is translated into a deliverable treatment. With the complexity of contemporary radiotherapy, treatment planning cannot be performed without a computerized treatment planning system. Proton therapy (PT) enables highly conformal treatment plans with a minimum of dose to tissues outside the target volume, but to obtain the most optimal plan for the treatment, there are a multitude of parameters that need to be addressed. In this review areas of ongoing improvements and research in the field of PT treatment planning are identified and discussed. The main focus is on issues of immediate clinical and practical relevance to the PT community highlighting the needs for the near future but also in a longer perspective. We anticipate that the manual tasks performed by treatment planners in the future will involve a high degree of computational thinking, as many issues can be solved much better by e.g. scripting. More accurate and faster dose calculation algorithms are needed, automation for contouring and planning is required and practical tools to handle the variable biological efficiency in PT is urgently demanded just to mention a few of the expected improvements over the coming 10 years.

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.

SU-E-T-626: Accuracy of Dose Calculation Algorithms in MultiPlan Treatment Planning System in Presence of Heterogeneities

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part21) ◽  
pp. 372-372
Author(s):  
C Moignier ◽  
C Huet ◽  
V Barraux ◽  
C Loiseau ◽  
K Sebe-Mercier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document