Literature DB >> 18421117

The impact of photon dose calculation algorithms on expected dose distributions in lungs under different respiratory phases.

Antonella Fogliata1, Giorgia Nicolini, Eugenio Vanetti, Alessandro Clivio, Peter Winkler, Luca Cozzi.   

Abstract

A planning study was carried out on a cohort of CT datasets from breast patients scanned during different respiratory phases. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of different air filling in lungs on the calculation accuracy of photon dose algorithms and to identify potential patterns of failure with clinical implications. Selected respiratory phases were free breathing (FB), representative of typical end expiration, and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH), a typical condition for clinical treatment with respiratory gating. Algorithms investigated were the pencil beam (PBC), the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed cone (CC) from the Varian Eclipse or Philips Pinnacle planning system. Reference benchmark calculations were performed with the Voxel Monte Carlo (VMC++). An analysis was performed in terms of physical quantities inspecting either dose-volume or dose-mass histograms and in terms of an extension to three dimensions of the gamma index of Low. Results were stratified according to a breathing phase and algorithm. Collectives acquired in FB or DIBH showed well-separated average lung density distributions with mean densities of 0.27 +/- 0.04 and 0.16 +/- 0.02 g cm(-3), respectively, and average peak densities of 0.17 +/- 0.03 and 0.09 +/- 0.02 g cm(-3). Analysis of volume-dose or mass-dose histograms proved the expected deviations on PBC results due to the missing lateral transport of electrons with underestimations in the low dose region and overestimations in the high dose region. From the gamma analysis, it resulted that PBC is systematically defective compared to VMC++ over the entire range of lung densities and dose levels with severe violations in both respiratory phases. The fraction of lung voxels with gamma > 1 for PBC reached 25% in DIBH and about 15% in FB. CC and AAA performed, in contrast, similarly and with fractions of lung voxels with gamma > 1 in average inferior to 2% in FB and 4-5% (AAA) or 6-8% (CC) in DIBH. In summary, PBC proved to be severely defective in calculations involving lungs and particularly for cases where specific respiratory phases (e.g. DIBH) are assumed for treatment. In contrast, CC and AAA manifested a high degree of consistency against the Monte Carlo method and provided stable results over the entire range of clinically relevant densities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18421117     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/9/011

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


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Paola Alvarez; Andrea Molineu; Carrie Amador; James Galvin; David S Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  On the dosimetric impact of inhomogeneity management in the Acuros XB algorithm for breast treatment.

Authors:  Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Eugenio Vanetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Quantitative assessment of irradiated lung volume and lung mass in breast cancer patients treated with tangential fields in combination with deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH).

Authors:  Brigitte Zurl; Heidi Stranzl; Peter Winkler; Karin Sigrid Kapp
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  Dosimetric accuracy of tomotherapy dose calculation in thorax lesions.

Authors:  Veronica Ardu; Sara Broggi; Giovanni Mauro Cattaneo; Paola Mangili; Riccardo Calandrino
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm in heterogeneous media.

Authors:  Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Alessandro Clivio; Eugenio Vanetti; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Review of fast monte carlo codes for dose calculation in radiation therapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Keyvan Jabbari
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2011-01

8.  Comparison of doses and NTCP to risk organs with enhanced inspiration gating and free breathing for left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy using the AAA algorithm.

Authors:  Anneli Edvardsson; Martin P Nilsson; Sousana Amptoulach; Sofie Ceberg
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Clinical implications in the use of the PBC algorithm versus the AAA by comparison of different NTCP models/parameters.

Authors:  Antonella Bufacchi; Barbara Nardiello; Roberto Capparella; Luisa Begnozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Developing and evaluating stereotactic lung RT trials: what we should know about the influence of inhomogeneity corrections on dose.

Authors:  Danny Schuring; Coen W Hurkmans
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2008-07-28       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.