Duong Thanh Tai1,2,3, Luong Thi Oanh3,2, Nguyen Dong Son4, Truong Thi Hong Loan2, James C L Chow5,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dong Nai General Hospital, Bien Hoa 810000, Viet Nam. 2. Faculty of Physics & Engineering Physics, VNUHCM-University of Science, Ho Chi Minh 749000, Viet Nam. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh 702000, Viet Nam. 4. Chi Anh Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Ho Chi Minh 717066, Viet Nam. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto M5T 1P5, Canada. 6. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto M5G 1Z5, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to verify the Prowess Panther jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) treatment planning (TP) by comparing the TP dose distributions for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer with the ones simulated by Monte Carlo (MC). BACKGROUND: To date, dose distributions planned using JO-IMRT for H&N patients were found superior to the corresponding three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans. Dosimetry of the JO-IMRT plans were also experimentally verified using an ionization chamber, MapCHECK 2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose distributions of 15 JO-IMRT plans of nasopharyngeal patients were recalculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The clinical photon beams were simulated using the BEAMnrc. The absorbed dose to patients treated by fixed-field IMRT was computed using the DOSXYZnrc. The simulated dose distributions were then compared with the ones calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithm on the TPS, using the relative dose error comparison and the gamma index using global methods implemented in PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria. RESULTS: There is a good agreement between the MC and TPS dose. The average gamma passing rates were 93.3 ± 3.1%, 92.8 ± 3.2%, 92.4 ± 3.4% based on the 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, it is concluded that the CCC algorithm was adequate for most of the IMRT H&N cases where the target was not immediately adjacent to the critical structures.
AIM: The aim of this study is to verify the Prowess Panther jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) treatment planning (TP) by comparing the TP dose distributions for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer with the ones simulated by Monte Carlo (MC). BACKGROUND: To date, dose distributions planned using JO-IMRT for H&N patients were found superior to the corresponding three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans. Dosimetry of the JO-IMRT plans were also experimentally verified using an ionization chamber, MapCHECK 2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose distributions of 15 JO-IMRT plans of nasopharyngeal patients were recalculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The clinical photon beams were simulated using the BEAMnrc. The absorbed dose to patients treated by fixed-field IMRT was computed using the DOSXYZnrc. The simulated dose distributions were then compared with the ones calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithm on the TPS, using the relative dose error comparison and the gamma index using global methods implemented in PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria. RESULTS: There is a good agreement between the MC and TPS dose. The average gamma passing rates were 93.3 ± 3.1%, 92.8 ± 3.2%, 92.4 ± 3.4% based on the 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, it is concluded that the CCC algorithm was adequate for most of the IMRT H&N cases where the target was not immediately adjacent to the critical structures.
Entities:
Keywords:
CERR; DOSCTP; Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT); Jaws-only IMRT (JO-IMRT); Monte Carlo simulation (MC); Quality assurance (QA)
Authors: Antonio Leal; Francisco Sánchez-Doblado; Rafael Arráns; Joan Roselló; Ester Carrasco Pavón; Juan Ignacio Lagares Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C M Ma; T Pawlicki; S B Jiang; J S Li; J Deng; E Mok; A Kapur; L Xing; L Ma; A L Boyer Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.609