Wolfgang Lechner1,2, Alexander Primeßnig1,2, Lena Nenoff1,2, Paulina Wesolowska3, Joanna Izewska3, Dietmar Georg1,2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Division Medical Physics, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
Background: Dosimetric effects of inaccuracies of output factors (OFs) implemented in treatment planning systems (TPSs) were investigated.Materials and methods: Modified beam models (MBM) for which the OFs of small fields (down to 1 × 1 cm2) were increased by up to 12% compared to the original beam models (OBM) were created for two TPSs. These beam models were used to recalculate treatment plans of different complexity. Treatment plans using stereotactic 3D-conformal (s3D-CRT) for brain metastasis as well as VMAT plans for head and neck and prostate cancer patients were generated. Dose distributions calculated with the MBM and the OBM were compared to measured dose distributions acquired using film dosimetry and a 2D-detector-array. For the s3D-CRT plans the calculated and measured dose at the isocenter was evaluated. For VMAT, gamma pass rates (GPRs) were calculated using global gamma index with 3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 1%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a 20% threshold. Contribution of small fields to the total fluence was expressed as the ratio (F) of fluence trough leaf openings smaller than 2 cm to the total fluence. Results: Using film dosimetry for the s3D-CRT plans, the average of the ratio of calculated dose to measured dose at the isocenter was 1.01 and 1.06 for the OBM and MBM model, respectively. A significantly lower GPR of the MBM compared to the OBM was only found for the localized prostate cases (F = 12.4%) measured with the 2D-detector-array and an acceptance criterion of 1%/3 mm. Conclusion: The effects of uncertainties in small field OFs implemented in TPSs are most pronounced for s3D-CRT cases and can be clearly identified using patient specific quality assurance. For VMAT these effects mainly remain undetected using standard patient specific quality assurance. Using tighter acceptance criteria combined with an analysis of the fluence generated by small fields can help identifying inaccuracies of OFs implemented in TPSs.
Background: Dosimetric effects of inaccuracies of output factors (OFs) implemented in treatment planning systems (TPSs) were investigated.Materials and methods: Modified beam models (MBM) for which the OFs of small fields (down to 1 × 1 cm2) were increased by up to 12% compared to the original beam models (OBM) were created for two TPSs. These beam models were used to recalculate treatment plans of different complexity. Treatment plans using stereotactic 3D-conformal (s3D-CRT) for brain metastasis as well as VMAT plans for head and neck and prostate cancerpatients were generated. Dose distributions calculated with the MBM and the OBM were compared to measured dose distributions acquired using film dosimetry and a 2D-detector-array. For the s3D-CRT plans the calculated and measured dose at the isocenter was evaluated. For VMAT, gamma pass rates (GPRs) were calculated using global gamma index with 3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 1%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a 20% threshold. Contribution of small fields to the total fluence was expressed as the ratio (F) of fluence trough leaf openings smaller than 2 cm to the total fluence. Results: Using film dosimetry for the s3D-CRT plans, the average of the ratio of calculated dose to measured dose at the isocenter was 1.01 and 1.06 for the OBM and MBM model, respectively. A significantly lower GPR of the MBM compared to the OBM was only found for the localized prostate cases (F = 12.4%) measured with the 2D-detector-array and an acceptance criterion of 1%/3 mm. Conclusion: The effects of uncertainties in small field OFs implemented in TPSs are most pronounced for s3D-CRT cases and can be clearly identified using patient specific quality assurance. For VMAT these effects mainly remain undetected using standard patient specific quality assurance. Using tighter acceptance criteria combined with an analysis of the fluence generated by small fields can help identifying inaccuracies of OFs implemented in TPSs.
Authors: Luis Muñoz; Tomas Kron; Marco Petasecca; Joseph Bucci; Michael Jackson; Peter Metcalfe; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Giordano Biasi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Mallory C Glenn; Fre'Etta Brooks; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eric Simiele; Dante Capaldi; Dylan Breitkreutz; Bin Han; Timothy Yeung; John White; Daniel Zaks; Michael Owens; Srinath Maganti; Lei Xing; Murat Surucu; Nataliya Kovalchuk Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Wolfgang Lechner; Rodolfo Alfonso; Mehenna Arib; M Saiful Huq; Anas Ismail; Rajesh Kinhikar; José M Lárraga-Gutiérrez; Karthick Raj Mani; Nkosingiphile Maphumulo; Otto A Sauer; Shaima Shoeir; Sivalee Suriyapee; Karen Christaki Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.506