Cargando…

Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution

We used the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse 7.3 three‐dimensional (3D) treatment planning system (TPS), the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and pencil‐beam convolution (PBC), to compare measured and calculated two‐dimensional enhanced dynamic wedge (2D EDW) dose distr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Caprile, Paola, Venencia, Carlos Daniel, Besa, Pelayo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592453
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2370
_version_ 1783285005308395520
author Caprile, Paola
Venencia, Carlos Daniel
Besa, Pelayo
author_facet Caprile, Paola
Venencia, Carlos Daniel
Besa, Pelayo
author_sort Caprile, Paola
collection PubMed
description We used the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse 7.3 three‐dimensional (3D) treatment planning system (TPS), the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and pencil‐beam convolution (PBC), to compare measured and calculated two‐dimensional enhanced dynamic wedge (2D EDW) dose distributions, plus implementation of the dynamic wedge into the TPS. Measurements were carried out for a 6‐MV photon beam produced with a Clinac 2300C/D linear accelerator equipped with EDW, using ionization chambers for beam axis measurements and films for dose distributions. Using both algorithms, the calculations were performed by the TPS for symmetric square fields in a perpendicular configuration. Accuracy of the TPS was evaluated using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA) as the individual acceptance criteria. Beam axis wedge factors and percentage depth dose calculation were within 1% deviation between calculated and measured values. In the non‐wedged direction, profiles exhibit variations lower than 2% of dose or 2 mm DTA. In the wedge direction, both algorithms reproduced the measured profiles within the acceptance criteria up to 30 degrees EDW. With larger wedge angles, the difference increased to 3%. The gamma distribution showed that, for field sizes of [Formula: see text] cm or larger, using an EDW of 45 or 60 degrees, the field corners and the high‐dose region of the distribution are not well modeled by PBC. For a [Formula: see text] cm field, using a 60‐degree EDW and PBC for calculation, the percentage of pixels that do not reach the acceptance criteria is 28.5%; but, using the AAA for the same conditions, this percentage is only 0.48% of the total distribution. Therefore, PBC is not reliable for planning a treatment when using a 60‐degree EDW for large field sizes. In all the cases, AAA models wedged dose distributions more accurately than PBC did. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Kn
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5722401
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57224012018-04-02 Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution Caprile, Paola Venencia, Carlos Daniel Besa, Pelayo J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics We used the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse 7.3 three‐dimensional (3D) treatment planning system (TPS), the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and pencil‐beam convolution (PBC), to compare measured and calculated two‐dimensional enhanced dynamic wedge (2D EDW) dose distributions, plus implementation of the dynamic wedge into the TPS. Measurements were carried out for a 6‐MV photon beam produced with a Clinac 2300C/D linear accelerator equipped with EDW, using ionization chambers for beam axis measurements and films for dose distributions. Using both algorithms, the calculations were performed by the TPS for symmetric square fields in a perpendicular configuration. Accuracy of the TPS was evaluated using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA) as the individual acceptance criteria. Beam axis wedge factors and percentage depth dose calculation were within 1% deviation between calculated and measured values. In the non‐wedged direction, profiles exhibit variations lower than 2% of dose or 2 mm DTA. In the wedge direction, both algorithms reproduced the measured profiles within the acceptance criteria up to 30 degrees EDW. With larger wedge angles, the difference increased to 3%. The gamma distribution showed that, for field sizes of [Formula: see text] cm or larger, using an EDW of 45 or 60 degrees, the field corners and the high‐dose region of the distribution are not well modeled by PBC. For a [Formula: see text] cm field, using a 60‐degree EDW and PBC for calculation, the percentage of pixels that do not reach the acceptance criteria is 28.5%; but, using the AAA for the same conditions, this percentage is only 0.48% of the total distribution. Therefore, PBC is not reliable for planning a treatment when using a 60‐degree EDW for large field sizes. In all the cases, AAA models wedged dose distributions more accurately than PBC did. PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Kn John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2007-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5722401/ /pubmed/17592453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2370 Text en © 2007 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
Caprile, Paola
Venencia, Carlos Daniel
Besa, Pelayo
Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title_full Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title_fullStr Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title_short Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
title_sort comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil‐beam convolution
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592453
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2370
work_keys_str_mv AT caprilepaola comparisonbetweenmeasuredandcalculateddynamicwedgedosedistributionsusingtheanisotropicanalyticalgorithmandpencilbeamconvolution
AT venenciacarlosdaniel comparisonbetweenmeasuredandcalculateddynamicwedgedosedistributionsusingtheanisotropicanalyticalgorithmandpencilbeamconvolution
AT besapelayo comparisonbetweenmeasuredandcalculateddynamicwedgedosedistributionsusingtheanisotropicanalyticalgorithmandpencilbeamconvolution