Cargando…

Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system

The physics modeling, dose calculation accuracy and plan quality assessment of the RayStation (v3.5) treatment planning system (TPS) is presented in this study, with appropriate comparisons to the more established Pinnacle (v9.2) TPS. Modeling and validation for the Elekta MLCi and Agility beam mode...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mzenda, Bongile, Mugabe, Koki V., Sims, Rick, Godwin, Guy, Loria, Dayan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207563
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4787
_version_ 1783283003414282240
author Mzenda, Bongile
Mugabe, Koki V.
Sims, Rick
Godwin, Guy
Loria, Dayan
author_facet Mzenda, Bongile
Mugabe, Koki V.
Sims, Rick
Godwin, Guy
Loria, Dayan
author_sort Mzenda, Bongile
collection PubMed
description The physics modeling, dose calculation accuracy and plan quality assessment of the RayStation (v3.5) treatment planning system (TPS) is presented in this study, with appropriate comparisons to the more established Pinnacle (v9.2) TPS. Modeling and validation for the Elekta MLCi and Agility beam models resulted in a good match to treatment machine‐measured data based on tolerances of 3% for in‐field and out‐of‐field regions, 10% for buildup and penumbral regions, and a gamma 2%/2 mm dose/distance acceptance criteria. TPS commissioning using a wide range of appropriately selected dosimetry equipment, and following published guidelines, established the MLC modeling and dose calculation accuracy to be within standard tolerances for all tests performed. In both homogeneous and heterogeneous mediums, central axis calculations agreed with measurements within 2% for open fields and 3% for wedged fields, and within 4% off‐axis. Treatment plan comparisons for identical clinical goals were made to Pinnacle for the following complex clinical cases: hypofractionated non‐small cell lung carcinoma, head and neck, stereotactic spine, as well as for several standard clinical cases comprising of prostate, brain, and breast plans. DVHs, target, and critical organ doses, as well as measured point doses and gamma indices, applying both local and global (Van Dyk) normalization at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm (10% lower threshold) acceptance criteria for these composite plans were assessed. In addition 3DVH was used to compare the perturbed dose distributions to the TPS 3D dose distributions. For all 32 cases, the patients QA checks showed [Formula: see text] of pixels passing 3% global/3 mm gamma. PACS numbers: 87.55kd, 87.55km, 87.55de, 87.55dk
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5711080
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57110802018-04-02 Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system Mzenda, Bongile Mugabe, Koki V. Sims, Rick Godwin, Guy Loria, Dayan J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The physics modeling, dose calculation accuracy and plan quality assessment of the RayStation (v3.5) treatment planning system (TPS) is presented in this study, with appropriate comparisons to the more established Pinnacle (v9.2) TPS. Modeling and validation for the Elekta MLCi and Agility beam models resulted in a good match to treatment machine‐measured data based on tolerances of 3% for in‐field and out‐of‐field regions, 10% for buildup and penumbral regions, and a gamma 2%/2 mm dose/distance acceptance criteria. TPS commissioning using a wide range of appropriately selected dosimetry equipment, and following published guidelines, established the MLC modeling and dose calculation accuracy to be within standard tolerances for all tests performed. In both homogeneous and heterogeneous mediums, central axis calculations agreed with measurements within 2% for open fields and 3% for wedged fields, and within 4% off‐axis. Treatment plan comparisons for identical clinical goals were made to Pinnacle for the following complex clinical cases: hypofractionated non‐small cell lung carcinoma, head and neck, stereotactic spine, as well as for several standard clinical cases comprising of prostate, brain, and breast plans. DVHs, target, and critical organ doses, as well as measured point doses and gamma indices, applying both local and global (Van Dyk) normalization at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm (10% lower threshold) acceptance criteria for these composite plans were assessed. In addition 3DVH was used to compare the perturbed dose distributions to the TPS 3D dose distributions. For all 32 cases, the patients QA checks showed [Formula: see text] of pixels passing 3% global/3 mm gamma. PACS numbers: 87.55kd, 87.55km, 87.55de, 87.55dk John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5711080/ /pubmed/25207563 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4787 Text en © 2014 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Mzenda, Bongile
Mugabe, Koki V.
Sims, Rick
Godwin, Guy
Loria, Dayan
Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title_full Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title_fullStr Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title_full_unstemmed Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title_short Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system
title_sort modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the raystation treatment planning system
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207563
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4787
work_keys_str_mv AT mzendabongile modelinganddosimetricperformanceevaluationoftheraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT mugabekokiv modelinganddosimetricperformanceevaluationoftheraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT simsrick modelinganddosimetricperformanceevaluationoftheraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT godwinguy modelinganddosimetricperformanceevaluationoftheraystationtreatmentplanningsystem
AT loriadayan modelinganddosimetricperformanceevaluationoftheraystationtreatmentplanningsystem