PURPOSE: To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. RESULTS: PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. RESULTS:PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.
Authors: Scott E Davidson; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Karl L Prado; Lei Dong; Zhongxing Liao; David S Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Indrin J Chetty; Bruce Curran; Joanna E Cygler; John J DeMarco; Gary Ezzell; Bruce A Faddegon; Iwan Kawrakow; Paul J Keall; Helen Liu; C M Charlie Ma; D W O Rogers; Jan Seuntjens; Daryoush Sheikh-Bagheri; Jeffrey V Siebers Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: George X Ding; Dennis M Duggan; Bo Lu; Dennis E Hallahan; Anthony Cmelak; Arnold Malcolm; Jared Newton; Matthew Deeley; Charles W Coffey Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David S Followill; DeeAnn Radford Evans; Christopher Cherry; Andrea Molineu; Gary Fisher; William F Hanson; Geoffrey S Ibbott Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry; Paola Alvarez; Tyler Keith; Carrie Lujano; Nadia Hernandez; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Austin M Faught; Scott E Davidson; Jonas Fontenot; Stephen F Kry; Carol Etzel; Geoffrey S Ibbott; David S Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Oleg N Vassiliev; Stephen F Kry; He C Wang; Christine B Peterson; Joe Y Chang; Radhe Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: David S Followill; Marcia Urie; James M Galvin; Kenneth Ulin; Ying Xiao; Thomas J Fitzgerald Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 6.244