PURPOSE: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucletron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed using Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). RESULTS: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. CONCLUSION: Mean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.
PURPOSE: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucletron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed using Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). RESULTS: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. CONCLUSION: Mean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.
Authors: Karina Reyes-Gordillo; José Segovia; Mineko Shibayama; Paula Vergara; Mario G Moreno; Pablo Muriel Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2007-02-22
Authors: J Koeck; Y Abo-Madyan; H T Eich; F Stieler; J Fleckenstein; J Kriz; R-P Mueller; F Wenz; F Lohr Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.621