Cargando…

Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose differences introduced by the TMR 10 and the convolution dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10, as compared to the TMR classic algorithm in the previous versions of GammaPlan. Computed axial tomographic images of a polystyrene phantom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Andy (Yuanguang), Bhatnagar, Jagdish, Bednarz, Greg, Niranjan, Ajay, Flickinger, John, Lunsford, L. Dade, Huq, M. Saiful
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/PMC5711097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207570
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4844
_version_ 1783283007257313280
author Xu, Andy (Yuanguang)
Bhatnagar, Jagdish
Bednarz, Greg
Niranjan, Ajay
Flickinger, John
Lunsford, L. Dade
Huq, M. Saiful
author_facet Xu, Andy (Yuanguang)
Bhatnagar, Jagdish
Bednarz, Greg
Niranjan, Ajay
Flickinger, John
Lunsford, L. Dade
Huq, M. Saiful
author_sort Xu, Andy (Yuanguang)
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose differences introduced by the TMR 10 and the convolution dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10, as compared to the TMR classic algorithm in the previous versions of GammaPlan. Computed axial tomographic images of a polystyrene phantom and a human head were acquired using a GE LightSpeed VCT scanner. A treatment target with a prescription dose of 20 Gy to 50% isodose line was defined in the phantom or the head CT set. The treatment times for single collimator, single shot placements were calculated using the three dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10. Four comparative studies were conducted: i) the dose matrix position was varied every 10 mm along the x‐, y‐, z‐axes of the stereotactic coordinate system inside the phantom and the treatment times were compared on each matrix for the three collimators of the Gamma Knife Perfexion and the four collimators of the 4C; ii) the study was repeated for the human head CT dataset; iii) the matrix position was varied every 20 mm in the X and the Y directions on the central slice [Formula: see text] of the head CT and the shot times were compared on each matrix for the 8 mm collimator of both units; a total of 51 matrix positions were identified for each unit; iv) the above comparison was repeated for the head CT transverse slices with [Formula: see text] and 160 mm. A total of 271 matrix positions were studied. Based on the comparison of the treatment times needed to deliver 20 Gy at 50% isodose line, the equivalent TMR classic dose of the TMR 10 algorithm is roughly a constant for each collimator of the 4C unit and is 97.5%, 98.5%, 98%, and 100% of the TMR 10 dose for the 18 mm, 14 mm, 8 mm, and the 4 mm collimators, respectively. The numbers for the three collimators of the Perfexion change with the shot positions in the range from 99% to 102% for both the phantom and the head CT. The minimum, maximum, and the mean values of the equivalent TMR classic doses of the convolution algorithm on the 271 voxels of the head CT are 99.5%, 111.5%, 106.5% of the convolution dose for the Perfexion, and 99%, 109%, 104.5% for the 4C unit. We identified a maximum decrease in delivered dose of 11.5% for treatment in the superior frontal/parietal vertex region of the head CT for older calculations lacking inhomogeneity correction to account for the greater percentage of the average beam path occupied by bone. The differences in the inferior temporal lobe and the cerebellum/neck regions are significantly less, owing to the counter‐balancing effects of both bone and the air cavity inhomogeneities. The dose differences between the TMR 10 and the TMR classic are within [Formula: see text] for a single shot placement on both Perfexion and 4C. Dose prescriptions based on the experiences with the TMR classic may need to be adjusted to accommodate the up to 11.5% difference between the convolution and the TMR classic. PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.55.kd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5711097
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57110972018-04-02 Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan Xu, Andy (Yuanguang) Bhatnagar, Jagdish Bednarz, Greg Niranjan, Ajay Flickinger, John Lunsford, L. Dade Huq, M. Saiful J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose differences introduced by the TMR 10 and the convolution dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10, as compared to the TMR classic algorithm in the previous versions of GammaPlan. Computed axial tomographic images of a polystyrene phantom and a human head were acquired using a GE LightSpeed VCT scanner. A treatment target with a prescription dose of 20 Gy to 50% isodose line was defined in the phantom or the head CT set. The treatment times for single collimator, single shot placements were calculated using the three dose calculation algorithms in GammaPlan version 10. Four comparative studies were conducted: i) the dose matrix position was varied every 10 mm along the x‐, y‐, z‐axes of the stereotactic coordinate system inside the phantom and the treatment times were compared on each matrix for the three collimators of the Gamma Knife Perfexion and the four collimators of the 4C; ii) the study was repeated for the human head CT dataset; iii) the matrix position was varied every 20 mm in the X and the Y directions on the central slice [Formula: see text] of the head CT and the shot times were compared on each matrix for the 8 mm collimator of both units; a total of 51 matrix positions were identified for each unit; iv) the above comparison was repeated for the head CT transverse slices with [Formula: see text] and 160 mm. A total of 271 matrix positions were studied. Based on the comparison of the treatment times needed to deliver 20 Gy at 50% isodose line, the equivalent TMR classic dose of the TMR 10 algorithm is roughly a constant for each collimator of the 4C unit and is 97.5%, 98.5%, 98%, and 100% of the TMR 10 dose for the 18 mm, 14 mm, 8 mm, and the 4 mm collimators, respectively. The numbers for the three collimators of the Perfexion change with the shot positions in the range from 99% to 102% for both the phantom and the head CT. The minimum, maximum, and the mean values of the equivalent TMR classic doses of the convolution algorithm on the 271 voxels of the head CT are 99.5%, 111.5%, 106.5% of the convolution dose for the Perfexion, and 99%, 109%, 104.5% for the 4C unit. We identified a maximum decrease in delivered dose of 11.5% for treatment in the superior frontal/parietal vertex region of the head CT for older calculations lacking inhomogeneity correction to account for the greater percentage of the average beam path occupied by bone. The differences in the inferior temporal lobe and the cerebellum/neck regions are significantly less, owing to the counter‐balancing effects of both bone and the air cavity inhomogeneities. The dose differences between the TMR 10 and the TMR classic are within [Formula: see text] for a single shot placement on both Perfexion and 4C. Dose prescriptions based on the experiences with the TMR classic may need to be adjusted to accommodate the up to 11.5% difference between the convolution and the TMR classic. PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.55.kd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2014-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5711097/ /pubmed/25207570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4844 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
Xu, Andy (Yuanguang)
Bhatnagar, Jagdish
Bednarz, Greg
Niranjan, Ajay
Flickinger, John
Lunsford, L. Dade
Huq, M. Saiful
Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title_full Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title_fullStr Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title_full_unstemmed Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title_short Dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in Leksell GammaPlan
title_sort dose differences between the three dose calculation algorithms in leksell gammaplan
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207570
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4844
work_keys_str_mv AT xuandyyuanguang dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT bhatnagarjagdish dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT bednarzgreg dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT niranjanajay dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT flickingerjohn dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT lunsfordldade dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan
AT huqmsaiful dosedifferencesbetweenthethreedosecalculationalgorithmsinleksellgammaplan