Literature DB >> 17301460

On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations.

Antonella Fogliata1, Eugenio Vanetti, Dirk Albers, Carsten Brink, Alessandro Clivio, Tommy Knöös, Giorgia Nicolini, Luca Cozzi.   

Abstract

A comparative study was performed to reveal differences and relative figures of merit of seven different calculation algorithms for photon beams when applied to inhomogeneous media. The following algorithms were investigated: Varian Eclipse: the anisotropic analytical algorithm, and the pencil beam with modified Batho correction; Nucletron Helax-TMS: the collapsed cone and the pencil beam with equivalent path length correction; CMS XiO: the multigrid superposition and the fast Fourier transform convolution; Philips Pinnacle: the collapsed cone. Monte Carlo simulations (MC) performed with the EGSnrc codes BEAMnrc and DOSxyznrc from NRCC in Ottawa were used as a benchmark. The study was carried out in simple geometrical water phantoms (rho = 1.00 g cm(-3)) with inserts of different densities simulating light lung tissue (rho = 0.035 g cm(-3)), normal lung (rho = 0.20 g cm(-3)) and cortical bone tissue (rho = 1.80 g cm(-3)). Experiments were performed for low- and high-energy photon beams (6 and 15 MV) and for square (13 x 13 cm2) and elongated rectangular (2.8 x 13 cm2) fields. Analysis was carried out on the basis of depth dose curves and transverse profiles at several depths. Assuming the MC data as reference, gamma index analysis was carried out distinguishing between regions inside the non-water inserts or inside the uniform water. For this study, a distance to agreement was set to 3 mm while the dose difference varied from 2% to 10%. In general all algorithms based on pencil-beam convolutions showed a systematic deficiency in managing the presence of heterogeneous media. In contrast, complicated patterns were observed for the advanced algorithms with significant discrepancies observed between algorithms in the lighter materials (rho = 0.035 g cm(-3)), enhanced for the most energetic beam. For denser, and more clinical, densities a better agreement among the sophisticated algorithms with respect to MC was observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17301460     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/5/011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  51 in total

1.  Dosimetric verification in inhomogeneous phantom geometries for the XiO radiotherapy treatment planning system with 6-MV photon beams.

Authors:  Ryosuke Kohno; Satoshi Kitou; Eriko Hirano; Satoru Kameoka; Tomonori Goka; Teiji Nishio; Tomoko Miyagishi; Takaki Ariji; Mitsuhiko Kawashima; Takashi Ogino
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-12-25

2.  Linear attenuation coefficient and buildup factor of MCP-96 alloy for dose accuracy, beam collimation, and radiation protection.

Authors:  Deidre N Hopkins; Muhammad Maqbool; Mohammed S Islam
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-05-15

Review 3.  Impact of dose calculation algorithm on radiation therapy.

Authors:  Wen-Zhou Chen; Ying Xiao; Jun Li
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-28

4.  Dosimetric verification using monte carlo calculations for tissue heterogeneity-corrected conformal treatment plans following RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria for lung cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jun Li; James Galvin; Amy Harrison; Robert Timmerman; Yan Yu; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 5.  Recent developments and best practice in brachytherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  C D Lee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Evaluation of dose calculations accuracy of a commercial treatment planning system for the head and neck region in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Mohammad Taghi Bahreyni Toossi; Bagher Farhood; Shokouhozaman Soleymanifard
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-08-18

7.  Modeling the Cellular Response of Lung Cancer to Radiation Therapy for a Broad Range of Fractionation Schedules.

Authors:  Jeho Jeong; Jung Hun Oh; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jose Belderbos; Jeffrey D Bradley; Andrew N Fontanella; Shyam S Rao; Joseph O Deasy
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Monte carlo simulation of bony heterogeneity effects on dose profile for small irradiation field in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Simone C Cardoso; Victor Gabriel L Alves; Luiz Antonio R da Rosa; Luciana T Campos; Delano V S Batista; Alessandro Facure
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  On the performances of Intensity Modulated Protons, RapidArc and Helical Tomotherapy for selected paediatric cases.

Authors:  Antonella Fogliata; Slav Yartsev; Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Eugenio Vanetti; Rolf Wyttenbach; Glenn Bauman; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy for bilateral breast: a treatment planning and dosimetric comparison for volumetric modulated arc and fixed field intensity modulated therapy.

Authors:  Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Antonella Fogliata; Eugenio Vanetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.