Limited accuracy of dose calculation for large fields at deep depths using the BrainSCAN v5.21 treatment-planning system

被引:1
|
作者
Hsi, Wen C.
Zhang, Yunkai
Kirk, Michael C.
Bernard, Damian
Chu, James C. H.
机构
[1] Rush Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Phys Med, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[2] Rush Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
来源
关键词
radiation treatment-planning system; BrainSCAN; BrainLAB; quality assurance;
D O I
10.1120/jacmp.2024.25333
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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 similar to 5% and similar to 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 increased 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.
引用
收藏
页码:12 / 18
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Improving Prescription Dose Accuracy in Total Body Irradiation Using Treatment Planning System for 15 MV Beam
    Prajapati, S.
    Lewis, D.
    Tung, S.
    Tailor, R.
    Chi, P.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2944 - 2945
  • [32] Evaluation of Surface Dose Prediction Accuracy of Precision Radixact Tomotherapy Treatment Planning System Using OSL Nanodots
    Alphonse, A.
    Pokharel, S.
    Kasper, M.
    Richter, S.
    Rana, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E903 - E903
  • [33] The accuracy of the out-of-field dose calculations using a model based algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system
    Wang, Lilie
    Ding, George X.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2014, 59 (13): : N113 - N128
  • [34] Evaluation of Out-Of-Field Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for a 1.5T MR-Linac
    Zhang, Y.
    Yan, S.
    Li, Z.
    Li, B.
    Quan, H.
    Zhu, J.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (06)
  • [35] Assessing the out-of-field dose calculation accuracy by eclipse treatment planning system in sliding window IMRT of prostate cancer patients
    Moghaddam, Fahimeh Faghihi
    Bakhshandeh, Mohsen
    Ghorbani, Mahdi
    Mofid, Bahram
    COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2020, 127
  • [36] Accuracy and efficiency of graphics processing unit (GPU) based Acuros XB dose calculation within the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system
    Aland, Trent
    Walsh, Anthony
    Jones, Marl
    Piccini, Angelina
    Devlin, Aimee
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2019, 44 (03) : 219 - 225
  • [37] A comparison of electron beam dose calculation accuracy between treatment planning systems using either a pencil beam or a Monte Carlo algorithm
    Ding, GX
    Cygler, JE
    Yu, CW
    Kalach, NI
    Daskalov, G
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2005, 63 (02): : 622 - 633
  • [38] Technical note: Heterogeneity dose calculation accuracy in IMRT: Study of five commercial treatment planning systems using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom
    Davidson, Scott E.
    Popple, Richard A.
    Ibbott, Geoffrey S.
    Followill, David S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (12) : 5434 - 5439
  • [39] Proton dose calculation using Monte-Carlo-validated pencil beam database for KonRad treatment planning system
    Trofimov, A
    Knopf, A
    Jiang, H
    Bortfeld, T
    Paganetti, H
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 32 (06) : 2030 - 2030
  • [40] Evaluation and Validation of a Set of Dosimetric and Geometric Accuracy Tests of the Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition Dose Calculation Algorithm for the RefleXion Treatment Planning System
    Bassalow, R.
    Zaks, D.
    Maganti, S.
    Voronenko, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E159 - E159