Cargando…

Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system

PURPOSE: To describe the tests that have been performed in order to commission the Brachytherapy module, version 3.2, service pack 3.0, of the Oncentra MasterPlan treatment plan system (OB), from Nucletron. The results were benchmarked against those obtained with the Plato system, v 14.3.7, also fro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Oliveira, Carla Alves, Lopes, Maria do Carmo, Matos, Armanda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28050176
_version_ 1782463745228800000
author de Oliveira, Carla Alves
Lopes, Maria do Carmo
Matos, Armanda
author_facet de Oliveira, Carla Alves
Lopes, Maria do Carmo
Matos, Armanda
author_sort de Oliveira, Carla Alves
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To describe the tests that have been performed in order to commission the Brachytherapy module, version 3.2, service pack 3.0, of the Oncentra MasterPlan treatment plan system (OB), from Nucletron. The results were benchmarked against those obtained with the Plato system, v 14.3.7, also from Nucletron, used in the clinical routine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Commissioning was performed taking Plato, v 14.3.7 as the standard TPS used in clinical practice. Commissioning tests were divided into two categories: i) simple geometric catheter configurations and ii) clinical intracavitary gynaecological and interstitial breast implants. For category i), also manual independent point dose calculations following the TG-43 dosimetry protocol were included in the comparisons. For category ii), the treatment plan comparisons were based on the calculated dose distributions in CT axial plans and on the dose-volume quality indexes following the local clinical acceptance criteria. Similar optimization tools were used in both systems. IPSA in OB was tested for planning interstitial breast implants and compared with the optimization process used with Plato in the clinical routine. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the point dose calculations, the agreement was better than 1%. For the clinical compared cases and using the same optimization tools all plans ended in similar dose distributions and very close quality indexes. Nevertheless, for endovaginal treatment plans, a slightly different value for the DTGR parameter had to be used (0.452, instead of 0.5 used as default in PLATO) in order to achieve the same dwell time for each activated source dwell position. Concerning interstitial breast implants, the IPSA algorithm constitutes a fast tool to reach a close clinical acceptable solution but Graphical Optimization is still needed. Considering these results the OB module was accepted for clinical use despite some persisting limitations, such as no consideration of heterogeneities or options for applicator shielding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5086490
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50864902017-01-03 Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system de Oliveira, Carla Alves Lopes, Maria do Carmo Matos, Armanda J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Article PURPOSE: To describe the tests that have been performed in order to commission the Brachytherapy module, version 3.2, service pack 3.0, of the Oncentra MasterPlan treatment plan system (OB), from Nucletron. The results were benchmarked against those obtained with the Plato system, v 14.3.7, also from Nucletron, used in the clinical routine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Commissioning was performed taking Plato, v 14.3.7 as the standard TPS used in clinical practice. Commissioning tests were divided into two categories: i) simple geometric catheter configurations and ii) clinical intracavitary gynaecological and interstitial breast implants. For category i), also manual independent point dose calculations following the TG-43 dosimetry protocol were included in the comparisons. For category ii), the treatment plan comparisons were based on the calculated dose distributions in CT axial plans and on the dose-volume quality indexes following the local clinical acceptance criteria. Similar optimization tools were used in both systems. IPSA in OB was tested for planning interstitial breast implants and compared with the optimization process used with Plato in the clinical routine. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the point dose calculations, the agreement was better than 1%. For the clinical compared cases and using the same optimization tools all plans ended in similar dose distributions and very close quality indexes. Nevertheless, for endovaginal treatment plans, a slightly different value for the DTGR parameter had to be used (0.452, instead of 0.5 used as default in PLATO) in order to achieve the same dwell time for each activated source dwell position. Concerning interstitial breast implants, the IPSA algorithm constitutes a fast tool to reach a close clinical acceptable solution but Graphical Optimization is still needed. Considering these results the OB module was accepted for clinical use despite some persisting limitations, such as no consideration of heterogeneities or options for applicator shielding. Termedia Publishing House 2010-01-13 2009-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5086490/ /pubmed/28050176 Text en Copyright: © 2010 Termedia Sp. z o. o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Article
de Oliveira, Carla Alves
Lopes, Maria do Carmo
Matos, Armanda
Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title_full Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title_fullStr Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title_full_unstemmed Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title_short Commissioning of brachytherapy module of Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system
title_sort commissioning of brachytherapy module of oncentra masterplan treatment planning system
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28050176
work_keys_str_mv AT deoliveiracarlaalves commissioningofbrachytherapymoduleofoncentramasterplantreatmentplanningsystem
AT lopesmariadocarmo commissioningofbrachytherapymoduleofoncentramasterplantreatmentplanningsystem
AT matosarmanda commissioningofbrachytherapymoduleofoncentramasterplantreatmentplanningsystem