Cargando…

Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system

Patient dose from 2.5 MV images on the TrueBeam linear accelerator is not easily quantified, primarily because this beam energy is not normally modeled by commercial treatment planning systems. In this work we present the feasibility of using the Eclipse® treatment planning system to model this beam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferris, William S., Culberson, Wesley S., Anderson, Daniel R., Labby, Zacariah E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6909176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31675460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12756
_version_ 1783478902825418752
author Ferris, William S.
Culberson, Wesley S.
Anderson, Daniel R.
Labby, Zacariah E.
author_facet Ferris, William S.
Culberson, Wesley S.
Anderson, Daniel R.
Labby, Zacariah E.
author_sort Ferris, William S.
collection PubMed
description Patient dose from 2.5 MV images on the TrueBeam linear accelerator is not easily quantified, primarily because this beam energy is not normally modeled by commercial treatment planning systems. In this work we present the feasibility of using the Eclipse® treatment planning system to model this beam. The Acuros XB and the AAA dose calculation algorithms were tested. Profiles, PDDs, and output factors were measured for the 2.5 MV unflattened imaging beam and used for beam modeling. The algorithms were subsequently verified using MPPG 5.a guidelines. Calculated doses with both algorithms agreed with the measurement data to within the following criteria recommended for conventional therapeutic MV beams: 2% local dose‐difference in the high‐dose region, 3% global difference in the low‐dose region, 3 mm distance to agreement in the penumbra, and a gamma pass rate of >95% for 3%/3 mm criteria. Acuros was able to accurately calculate dose through cork and bone‐equivalent heterogeneities. AAA was able to accurately calculate dose through the bone‐equivalent heterogeneity but did not pass within the recommended criteria for the cork heterogeneity. For the 2.5 MV imaging beam, both the AAA and Acuros algorithms provide calculated doses that agree with measured results well within the 20% criteria for imaging beams recommended by AAPM TG‐180.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6909176
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69091762019-12-20 Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system Ferris, William S. Culberson, Wesley S. Anderson, Daniel R. Labby, Zacariah E. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Patient dose from 2.5 MV images on the TrueBeam linear accelerator is not easily quantified, primarily because this beam energy is not normally modeled by commercial treatment planning systems. In this work we present the feasibility of using the Eclipse® treatment planning system to model this beam. The Acuros XB and the AAA dose calculation algorithms were tested. Profiles, PDDs, and output factors were measured for the 2.5 MV unflattened imaging beam and used for beam modeling. The algorithms were subsequently verified using MPPG 5.a guidelines. Calculated doses with both algorithms agreed with the measurement data to within the following criteria recommended for conventional therapeutic MV beams: 2% local dose‐difference in the high‐dose region, 3% global difference in the low‐dose region, 3 mm distance to agreement in the penumbra, and a gamma pass rate of >95% for 3%/3 mm criteria. Acuros was able to accurately calculate dose through cork and bone‐equivalent heterogeneities. AAA was able to accurately calculate dose through the bone‐equivalent heterogeneity but did not pass within the recommended criteria for the cork heterogeneity. For the 2.5 MV imaging beam, both the AAA and Acuros algorithms provide calculated doses that agree with measured results well within the 20% criteria for imaging beams recommended by AAPM TG‐180. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6909176/ /pubmed/31675460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12756 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Ferris, William S.
Culberson, Wesley S.
Anderson, Daniel R.
Labby, Zacariah E.
Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title_full Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title_fullStr Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title_full_unstemmed Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title_short Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
title_sort calculating dose from a 2.5 mv imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6909176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31675460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12756
work_keys_str_mv AT ferriswilliams calculatingdosefroma25mvimagingbeamusingacommercialtreatmentplanningsystem
AT culbersonwesleys calculatingdosefroma25mvimagingbeamusingacommercialtreatmentplanningsystem
AT andersondanielr calculatingdosefroma25mvimagingbeamusingacommercialtreatmentplanningsystem
AT labbyzacariahe calculatingdosefroma25mvimagingbeamusingacommercialtreatmentplanningsystem