Literature DB >> 17153392

Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation.

Ann Van Esch1, Laura Tillikainen, Jukka Pyykkonen, Mikko Tenhunen, Hannu Helminen, Sami Siljamäki, Jyrki Alakuijala, Marta Paiusco, Mauro Lori, Dominique P Huyskens.   

Abstract

The analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system to replace the single pencil beam (SPB) algorithm for the calculation of dose distributions for photon beams. AAA was developed to improve the dose calculation accuracy, especially in heterogeneous media. The total dose deposition is calculated as the superposition of the dose deposited by two photon sources (primary and secondary) and by an electron contamination source. The photon dose is calculated as a three-dimensional convolution of Monte-Carlo precalculated scatter kernels, scaled according to the electron density matrix. For the configuration of AAA, an optimization algorithm determines the parameters characterizing the multiple source model by optimizing the agreement between the calculated and measured depth dose curves and profiles for the basic beam data. We have combined the acceptance tests obtained in three different departments for 6, 15, and 18 MV photon beams. The accuracy of AAA was tested for different field sizes (symmetric and asymmetric) for open fields, wedged fields, and static and dynamic multileaf collimation fields. Depth dose behavior at different source-to-phantom distances was investigated. Measurements were performed on homogeneous, water equivalent phantoms, on simple phantoms containing cork inhomogeneities, and on the thorax of an anthropomorphic phantom. Comparisons were made among measurements, AAA, and SPB calculations. The optimization procedure for the configuration of the algorithm was successful in reproducing the basic beam data with an overall accuracy of 3%, 1 mm in the build-up region, and 1%, 1 mm elsewhere. Testing of the algorithm in more clinical setups showed comparable results for depth dose curves, profiles, and monitor units of symmetric open and wedged beams below dmax. The electron contamination model was found to be suboptimal to model the dose around dmax, especially for physical wedges at smaller source to phantom distances. For the asymmetric field verification, absolute dose difference of up to 4% were observed for the most extreme asymmetries. Compared to the SPB, the penumbra modeling is considerably improved (1%, 1 mm). At the interface between solid water and cork, profiles show a better agreement with AAA. Depth dose curves in the cork are substantially better with AAA than with SPB. Improvements are more pronounced for 18 MV than for 6 MV. Point dose measurements in the thoracic phantom are mostly within 5%. In general, we can conclude that, compared to SPB, AAA improves the accuracy of dose calculations. Particular progress was made with respect to the penumbra and low dose regions. In heterogeneous materials, improvements are substantial and more pronounced for high (18 MV) than for low (6 MV) energies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17153392     DOI: 10.1118/1.2358333

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


  74 in total

1.  Design and development of a new micro-beam treatment planning system: effectiveness of algorithms of optimization and dose calculations and potential of micro-beam treatment.

Authors:  Hidenobu Tachibana; Hiroyuki Kojima; Noritaka Yusa; Satoshi Miyajima; Akihisa Tsuda; Takashi Yamashita
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-04-29

2.  Dose discrepancies in the buildup region and their impact on dose calculations for IMRT fields.

Authors:  Shu-Hui Hsu; Jean M Moran; Yu Chen; Ravi Kulasekere; Peter L Roberson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm in lung equivalent heterogeneities with and without bone equivalent heterogeneities.

Authors:  Kaoru Ono; Satoru Endo; Kenichi Tanaka; Masaharu Hoshi; Yutaka Hirokawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Methodology for determining doses to in-field, out-of-field and partially in-field organs for late effects studies in photon radiotherapy.

Authors:  Rebecca M Howell; Sarah B Scarboro; Phillip J Taddei; Sunil Krishnan; Stephen F Kry; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system.

Authors:  Rebecca M Howell; Sarah B Scarboro; S F Kry; Derek Z Yaldo
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  The effect of slice thickness on target and organs at risk volumes, dosimetric coverage and radiobiological impact in IMRT planning.

Authors:  S P Srivastava; C-W Cheng; I J Das
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.405

7.  Statistic and dosimetric criteria to assess the shift of the prescribed dose for lung radiotherapy plans when integrating point kernel models in medical physics: are we ready?

Authors:  Abdulhamid Chaikh; Jacques Balosso
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12

8.  Dose calculation accuracies in whole breast radiotherapy treatment planning: a multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Shogo Hatanaka; Yuki Miyabe; Naoki Tohyama; Yu Kumazaki; Masahiko Kurooka; Hiroyuki Okamoto; Hidenobu Tachibana; Satoshi Kito; Akihisa Wakita; Yuko Ohotomo; Hiroyuki Ikagawa; Satoshi Ishikura; Miwako Nozaki; Yoshikazu Kagami; Masahiro Hiraoka; Teiji Nishio
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-02-03

9.  Calculating and estimating second cancer risk from breast radiotherapy using Monte Carlo code with internal body scatter for each out-of-field organ.

Authors:  Takeshi Takata; Kenshiro Shiraishi; Shinobu Kumagai; Norikazu Arai; Takenori Kobayashi; Hiroshi Oba; Takahide Okamoto; Jun'ichi Kotoku
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam based optimization of stereotactic lung IMRT.

Authors:  Marcin Sikora; Jan Muzik; Matthias Söhn; Martin Weinmann; Markus Alber
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-12-12       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.