Literature DB >> 26141766

Analyzing the performance of the planning system by use of AAPM TG 119 test cases.

L Nithya1, N Arunai Nambi Raj2, Sasikumar Rathinamuthu3, Manish Bhushan Pandey3.   

Abstract

Our objective in this study was to create AAPM TG 119 test plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the Monaco planning system. The results were compared with the published studies, and the performance of the Monaco planning system was analyzed. AAPM TG 119 proposed a set of test cases called multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck and C-shape to ascertain the overall accuracy of IMRT planning, measurement, and analysis. We used these test cases to investigate the performance of the Monaco planning system for the complex plans. For these test cases, we created IMRT plans with static multi-leaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic MLC by using 7-9 static beams as explained in TG-119. VMAT plans were also created with a 320° arc length and a single or double arc. The planning objectives and dose were set as described in TG 119. The dose prescriptions for multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck, and C-shape were taken as 50, 75.6, 50 and 50 Gy, respectively. All plans were compared with the results of TG 119 and the study done by Mynampati et al. Point dose and fluence measurements were done with a CC13 chamber and ArcCHECK phantom, respectively. Gamma analysis was done for the calculated and measured dose. Using the Monaco planning system, we achieved the goals mentioned in AAPM TG-119, and the plans were comparable to those of other studies. A comparison of point dose and fluence showed good results. From these results, we conclude that the performance of the Monaco planning system is good for complex plans.

Keywords:  Dynamic IMRT; Monaco planning system; Static IMRT; TG 119; VMAT

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26141766     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-015-0328-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  10 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of SmartArc-based dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Tsair-Fwu Lee; Pei-Ju Chao; Hui-Min Ting; Su-Hua Lo; Yu-Wen Wang; Chiu-Ching Tuan; Fu-Min Fang; Te-Jen Su
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: short report of the TG-166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM.

Authors:  X Allen Li; Markus Alber; Joseph O Deasy; Andrew Jackson; Kyung-Wook Ken Jee; Lawrence B Marks; Mary K Martel; Charles Mayo; Vitali Moiseenko; Alan E Nahum; Andrzej Niemierko; Vladimir A Semenenko; Ellen D Yorke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT.

Authors:  Eugenio Vanetti; Alessandro Clivio; Giorgia Nicolini; Antonella Fogliata; Sarbani Ghosh-Laskar; Jai Prakash Agarwal; Ritu Raj Upreti; Ashwini Budrukkar; Vedang Murthy; Deepak Dattatray Deshpande; Shyam Kishore Shrivastava; Ketayun Ardeshir Dinshaw; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.

Authors:  Gary A Ezzell; Jay W Burmeister; Nesrin Dogan; Thomas J LoSasso; James G Mechalakos; Dimitris Mihailidis; Andrea Molineu; Jatinder R Palta; Chester R Ramsey; Bill J Salter; Jie Shi; Ping Xia; Ning J Yue; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. parotid-sparing 3D conformal radiotherapy. Effect on outcome and toxicity in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Authors:  M Lambrecht; D Nevens; S Nuyts
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Can dose reduction to one parotid gland prevent xerostomia?--A feasibility study for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  A K Anand; J Jain; P S Negi; A R Chaudhoory; S N Sinha; P S Choudhury; R Kumar; R K Munjal
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.126

7.  Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study.

Authors:  Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study.

Authors:  Andrea Holt; Dirk Van Gestel; Mark P Arends; Erik W Korevaar; Danny Schuring; Martina C Kunze-Busch; Rob Jw Louwe; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Comparative analysis of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for base of tongue cancer.

Authors:  L Nithya; N Arunai Nambi Raj; Arulraj Kumar; Sasikumar Rathinamuthu; Manish Bhushan Pandey
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2014-04

10.  Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT).

Authors:  Dinesh Kumar Mynampati; Ravindra Yaparpalvi; Linda Hong; Hsiang-Chi Kuo; Dennis Mah
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six linacs from the same vendor.

Authors:  Chockkalingam Krishnappan; Chandrasekaran Anu Radha; Karunakaran Balaji; Prasanna Kumar Mani; Vendhan Subramani; Velmurugan Thanigaimalai; Madhan Kumar Gunasekaran; Velayudham Ramasubramanian
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-09-29

2.  Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf transmission on head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning.

Authors:  Motoharu Sasaki; Masahide Tominaga; Takeshi Kamomae; Hitoshi Ikushima; Motonori Kitaoka; Ryota Bando; Kanako Sakuragawa; Masataka Oita
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 2.374

3.  Effect of contrast medium on treatment modalities planned with different photon beam energies: a planning study.

Authors:  Manindra Bhushan; Deepak Tripathi; Girigesh Yadav; Lalit Kumar; Abhinav Dewan; Sarthak Tandon; Gourav Kumar; Inderjit Kaur Wahi; Munish Gairola
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-09-30

4.  Verification of Dosimetric Commissioning Accuracy of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Delivery using Task Group-119 Guidelines.

Authors:  Karunakaran Kaviarasu; N Arunai Nambi Raj; Misba Hamid; A Ananda Giri Babu; Lingampally Sreenivas; Kammari Krishna Murthy
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2017 Oct-Dec

5.  Evaluation of Targeted Image-Guided Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning System by Use of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-119 Test Cases.

Authors:  Mohsen Saeb; Daryoush Shahbazi-Gahrouei; Shahram Monadi
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun

6.  Validation of the RapidArc Delivery System Using a Volumetric Phantom as Per Task Group Report 119 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Authors:  Lalit Kumar; Girigesh Yadav; Vimal Kishore; Manindra Bhushan; Munish Gairola; Deepak Tripathi
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2019 Apr-Jun
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.