scholarly journals The Dosimetric Evaluation of An In-House Software Developed For Metal Artefact Reduction On Two Different Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysun Inal ◽  
Songul Barlaz Us
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Hounsfield Unit ◽  
Ct Images ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Metal Artefact Reduction ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Gamma Evaluation ◽  
Metal Artefact ◽  
Artefact Reduction

Abstract Metal Artefact Reduction (MAR) is very important in terms of dose calculation in radiotherapy. It was aimed to develop an in-house MAR software as an alternative to commercial software programs and to examine its effectiveness by comparing it with the SMART-MAR software which was available commercially. A phantom containing metal with high atomic number was designed and computed tomography (CT) images of this phantom were taken (Without-MAR images). The obtained CT images were processed with the SMART-MAR software and the developed In-House MAR software. Processed images were compared in terms of Hounsfield unit (HU), absolute dose values ​​in the Accuray and CMS XiO treatment planning systems, and gamma evaluation. The best HU improvement was observed in the developed In-House MAR. The maximum mean percentage differences in absorbed doses at the determined points in Accuray was found 33.3% and 32.5% between Without MAR - SMART MAR and Without MAR- In-House MAR, respectively. The In-House MAR software developed by using MATLAB was shown similar results with the SMART MAR software. Although in-house MAR software needs to be investigated clinically, it is more advantageous than commercially available software in terms of being cost-free, applicability in a shorter time and without reconstruction.

scholarly journals Dose calculation comparisons between three modern treatment planning systems

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Ganesh Narayanasamy ◽  
Sotirios Stathakis ◽  
Courtney Bosse ◽  
Daniel Saenz ◽  
Pamela Myers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Modern Treatment

Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems in the presence of tissue heterogeneities

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 28-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kashmiri L. Chopra ◽  
Paul Leo ◽  
Christopher Kabat ◽  
Durg Vijay Rai ◽  
Jaiteerth S. Avadhani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems

scholarly journals Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-190
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abazarfard ◽  
Payam Azadeh ◽  
Ahmad Mostaar
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Small Fields ◽  
Mc Simulation ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document