Cargando…

Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Breitman, Karen, Rathee, Satyapal, Newcomb, Chris, Murray, Brad, Robinson, Don, Field, Colin, Warkentin, Heather, Connors, Sherry, MacKenzie, Marc, Dunscombe, Peter, Fallone, Gino
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/PMC5722411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350
_version_ 1783285007769403392
author Breitman, Karen
Rathee, Satyapal
Newcomb, Chris
Murray, Brad
Robinson, Don
Field, Colin
Warkentin, Heather
Connors, Sherry
MacKenzie, Marc
Dunscombe, Peter
Fallone, Gino
author_facet Breitman, Karen
Rathee, Satyapal
Newcomb, Chris
Murray, Brad
Robinson, Don
Field, Colin
Warkentin, Heather
Connors, Sherry
MacKenzie, Marc
Dunscombe, Peter
Fallone, Gino
author_sort Breitman, Karen
collection PubMed
description The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5722411
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57224112018-04-02 Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm Breitman, Karen Rathee, Satyapal Newcomb, Chris Murray, Brad Robinson, Don Field, Colin Warkentin, Heather Connors, Sherry MacKenzie, Marc Dunscombe, Peter Fallone, Gino J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA. At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.” For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided. PACS number: 87.53.Dq John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2007-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5722411/ /pubmed/17592457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350 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
Breitman, Karen
Rathee, Satyapal
Newcomb, Chris
Murray, Brad
Robinson, Don
Field, Colin
Warkentin, Heather
Connors, Sherry
MacKenzie, Marc
Dunscombe, Peter
Fallone, Gino
Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title_full Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title_fullStr Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title_full_unstemmed Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title_short Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm
title_sort experimental validation of the eclipse aaa algorithm
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5722411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17592457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350
work_keys_str_mv AT breitmankaren experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT ratheesatyapal experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT newcombchris experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT murraybrad experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT robinsondon experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT fieldcolin experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT warkentinheather experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT connorssherry experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT mackenziemarc experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT dunscombepeter experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm
AT fallonegino experimentalvalidationoftheeclipseaaaalgorithm