Literature DB >> 14655941

Independent dosimetric calculation with inclusion of head scatter and MLC transmission for IMRT.

Y Yang1, L Xing, J G Li, J Palta, Y Chen, Gary Luxton, A Boyer.   

Abstract

Independent verification of the MU settings and dose calculation of IMRT treatment plans is an important step in the IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedure. At present, the verification is mainly based on experimental measurements, which are time consuming and labor intensive. Although a few simplified algorithms have recently been proposed for the independent dose (or MU) calculation, head scatter has not been precisely taken into account in all these investigations and the dose validation has mainly been limited to the central axis. In this work we developed an effective computer algorithm for IMRT MU and dose validation. The technique is superior to the currently available computer-based MU check systems in that (1) it takes full consideration of the head scatter and leaf transmission effects; and (2) it allows a precise dose calculation at an arbitrary spatial point instead of merely a point on the central axis. In the algorithm the dose at an arbitrary spatial point is expressed as a summation of the contributions of primary and scatter radiation from all beamlets. Each beamlet is modulated by a dynamic modulation factor (DMF), which is determined by the MLC leaf trajectories, the head scatter, the jaw positions, and the MLC leaf transmission. A three-source model was used to calculate the head scatter distribution for irregular segments shaped by MLC and the scatter dose contributions were computed using a modified Clarkson method. The system reads in MLC leaf sequence files (or RTP files) generated by the Corvus (NOMOS Corporation, Sewickley, PA) inverse planning system and then computes the doses at the desired points. The algorithm was applied to study the dose distributions of several testing intensity modulated fields and two multifield Corvus plans and the results were compared with Corvus plans and experimental measurements. The final dose calculations at most spatial points agreed with the experimental measurements to within 3% for both the specially designed testing fields and the clinical intensity modulated field. Furthermore, excellent agreement (mostly within +/- 3.0%) was also found between our independent calculation and the ion chamber measurements at both central axis and off-axis positions for the multifield Corvus IMRT plans. These results indicate that the approach is robust and valuable for routine clinical IMRT plan validation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14655941     DOI: 10.1118/1.1617391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  12 in total

1.  Measurement and comparison of head scatter factor for 7 MV unflattened (FFF) and 6 MV flattened photon beam using indigenously designed columnar mini phantom.

Authors:  Sigamani Ashokkumar; Arunai Nambiraj; Sujit Nath Sinha; Girigesh Yadav; Kothanda Raman; Manindra Bhushan; Rajesh Thiyagarajan
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-03-01

2.  Independent calculation of monitor units for VMAT and SPORT.

Authors:  Xin Chen; Karl Bush; Aiping Ding; Lei Xing
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Monitor unit calculations for external photon and electron beams: Report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group No. 71.

Authors:  John P Gibbons; John A Antolak; David S Followill; M Saiful Huq; Eric E Klein; Kwok L Lam; Jatinder R Palta; Donald M Roback; Mark Reid; Faiz M Khan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  4D radiobiological modelling of the interplay effect in conventionally and hypofractionated lung tumour IMRT.

Authors:  J Selvaraj; J Uzan; C Baker; A Nahum
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Verification of the machine delivery parameters of a treatment plan via deep learning.

Authors:  Jiawei Fan; Lei Xing; Ming Ma; Weigang Hu; Yong Yang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  X Ronald Zhu; Yupeng Li; Dennis Mackin; Heng Li; Falk Poenisch; Andrew K Lee; Anita Mahajan; Steven J Frank; Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  The quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for early stage prostate cancer: a technical note.

Authors:  Craig A Elith; Shane E Dempsey; Fred Cao; Afrooz Farshadi; Helen M Warren-Forward
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-10-29

8.  Modulation factors calculated with an EPID-derived MLC fluence model to streamline IMRT/VMAT second checks.

Authors:  Stephen Steciw; Satyapal Rathee; Brad Warkentin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Comparison of Head Scatter Factor for 6MV and 10MV flattened (FB) and Unflattened (FFF) Photon Beam using indigenously Designed Columnar Mini Phantom.

Authors:  Sigamani Ashokkumar; N Arunai Nambi Raj; Sujit Nath Sinha; Girigesh Yadav; Rajesh Thiyagarajan; Kothanda Raman; Manindra Bhushan Mishra
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2014-07

10.  Independent calculation of dose from a helical TomoTherapy unit.

Authors:  John P Gibbons; Koren Smith; Dennis Cheek; Isaac Rosen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-02-05       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.