Literature DB >> 31883390

AAPM Task Group 329: Reference dose specification for dose calculations: Dose-to-water or dose-to-muscle?

Stephen F Kry1, Vladimir Feygelman2, Peter Balter1, Tommy Knöös3, C-M Charlie Ma4, Michael Snyder5, Brian Tonner6, Oleg N Vassiliev1.   

Abstract

Linac calibration is done in water, but patients are comprised primarily of soft tissue. Conceptually, and specified in NRG/RTOG trials, dose should be reported as dose-to-muscle to describe the dose to the patient. Historically, the dose-to-water of the linac calibration was often converted to dose-to-muscle for patient calculations through manual application of a 0.99 dose-to-water to dose-to-muscle correction factor, applied during the linac clinical reference calibration. However, many current treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculation algorithms approximately provide dose-to-muscle (tissue), making application of a manual scaling unnecessary. There is little guidance on when application of a scaling factor is appropriate, resulting in highly inconsistent application of this scaling by the community. In this report we provide guidance on the steps necessary to go from the linac absorbed dose-to-water calibration to dose-to-muscle in patient, for various commercial TPS algorithms. If the TPS does not account for the difference between dose-to-water and dose-to-muscle, then TPS reference dose scaling is warranted. We have tabulated the major vendors' TPS in terms of whether they approximate dose-to-muscle or calculate dose-to-water and recommend the correction factor required to report dose-to-muscle directly from the TPS algorithm. Physicists should use this report to determine the applicable correction required for specifying the reference dose in their TPS to achieve this goal and should remain attentive to possible changes to their dose calculation algorithm in the future.
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calibration; medium; muscle; reference; water

Year:  2020        PMID: 31883390     DOI: 10.1002/mp.13995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Radiobiological Comparison of Acuros External Beam and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm on Esophageal Carcinoma Radiotherapy Treatment Plans.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Jianping Zhang; Miaoyun Huang; Benhua Xu; Xiaobo Li
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 2.623

2.  Dosimetric Influence of Acuros XB Dose-to-Medium and Dose-to-Water Reporting Modes on Carcinoma Cervix Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric RapidArc Technique.

Authors:  Lalit Kumar; Manindra Bhushan; Vimal Kishore; Rahul Lal Chowdhary; Soumitra Barik; Anurag Sharma; Munish Gairola
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-18

3.  The current status and shortcomings of stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Hunter Mehrens; Trang Nguyen; Sharbacha Edward; Shannon Hartzell; Mallory Glenn; Daniela Branco; Nadia Hernandez; Paola Alvarez; Andrea Molineu; Paige Taylor; Stephen Kry
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2022-04-20

4.  Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration.

Authors:  Guadalupe Martin-Martin; Stefan Walter; Eduardo Guibelalde
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-02-25

5.  Integration of automation into an existing clinical workflow to improve efficiency and reduce errors in the manual treatment planning process for total body irradiation (TBI).

Authors:  David H Thomas; Brian Miller; Rachel Rabinovitch; Sarah Milgrom; Brian Kavanagh; Quentin Diot; Moyed Miften; Leah K Schubert
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning.

Authors:  Vladimir Feygelman; Kujtim Latifi; Mark Bowers; Kevin Greco; Eduardo G Moros; Max Isacson; Agnes Angerud; Jimmy Caudell
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 2.243

7.  Commissioning and validation of RayStation treatment planning system for CyberKnife M6.

Authors:  Maude Gondré; Mireille Conrad; Véronique Vallet; Jean Bourhis; François Bochud; Raphaël Moeckli
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 2.243

8.  AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

Authors:  Mark W Geurts; Dustin J Jacqmin; Lindsay E Jones; Stephen F Kry; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Jared D Ohrt; Timothy Ritter; Jennifer B Smilowitz; Nicholai E Wingreen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.243

9.  A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy.

Authors:  Raju P Srivastava; K Basta; Werner De Gersem; Carlos De Wagter
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-06-09

10.  Dosimetric Impact of Acuros XB Dose-to-Water and Dose-to-Medium Reporting Modes on Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Its Dependency on Structure Composition.

Authors:  Carles Muñoz-Montplet; Rafael Fuentes-Raspall; Diego Jurado-Bruggeman; Sebastià Agramunt-Chaler; Albert Onsès-Segarra; Maria Buxó
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.