Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Background: Study determines differences in calculated dose distributions for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSC LC) patients. NSC LC cases were investigated, being the most common lung cancer treated by radiotherapy in our clinical practice. Materials and methods: A retrospective study of 15 NSCLC patient dose distributions originally calculated using standard superposition (SS) and recalculated using collapsed cone (CC ) and Monte Carlo (MC) based algorithm expressed as dose to medium in medium (MCDm) and dose to water in medium (MCDw,) was performed so that prescribed dose covers at least 99% of the gross target volume (GTV). Statistical analysis was performed for differences of conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose delivered to 2% of the volume (D2%), mean dose (Dmean) and percentage of volumes covered by prescribed dose (V70Gy). For organs at risk (OARs), Dmean and percentage of volume receiving 20 Gy and 5Gy (V20Gy, V5Gy) were analysed. Results: Statistically significant difference for GTVs was observed between MCDw and SS algorithm in mean dose only. For planning target volumes (PTVs), statistically significant differences were observed in prescribed dose coverage for CC, MCDm and MCDw. The differences in mean CI value for the CC algorithm and mean HI value for MCDm and MCDw were statistically significant. There is a statistically significant difference in the number of MUs for MCDm and MCDw compared to SS. Conclusion: All investigated algorithms succeed in managing the restrictive conditions of the clinical goals. This study shows the drawbacks of the CC algorithm compared to other algorithms used.

National reference levels of CT procedures dedicated for treatment planning in radiation oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To present results of the first national survey on reference levels of CT imaging performed for the treatment planning purposes in radiation oncology in Croatia. METHODS: Data for CT protocols of five anatomical regions including head, head and neck, pelvis, breast, and thorax were collected at eight radiation oncology departments in Croatia. Data included volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), scan length and set of acquisition and reconstruction parameters. Data on a total of 600 patients were collected. Median values of scan length, DLP and CTDIvol were calculated for each acquisition protocol. Third quartiles of the median CTDIvol and DLP values were proposed as the national radiotherapy planning reference levels (RPRL). RESULTS: The largest CoV were assessed for RT Breast (63.8% for CTDIvol), RT Thorax (79.7% for DLP) and RT H&N (21.2% for scan length). RT Head had the lowest CoV for CTDIvol (1,9%) and DLP (17,2%), while RT Breast had the lowest coefficient of variation for scan length (12.8%). Proposed national RPRLs are: for RT Head CTDIvol16cm = 62 mGy and DLP16cm = 1738 mGy.cm; for RT H&N CTDIvol16cm = 35 mGy and DLP16cm = 1444 mGy.cm; for RT Breast CTDIvol32cm = 16 mGy and DLP32cm = 731 mGy.cm; for RT Thorax CTDIvol32cm = 17 mGy and DLP32cm = 865 mGy.cm; for RT Pelvis CTDIvol32cm = 20 mGy and DLP32cm = 1133 mGy.cm. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study show variations in CT imaging for treatment planning practice at the national level which call for optimization of procedures.

Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media.

Introduction Advanced, Monte Carlo (MC) based dose calculation algorithms, determine absorbed dose as dose to medium-in-medium (Dm,m) or dose to water-in-medium (Dw,m). Some earlier studies identified the differences in the absorbed doses related to the calculation mode, especially in the bone density equivalent (BDE) media. Since the calculation algorithms built in the treatment planning systems (TPS) should be dosimetrically verified before their use, we analyzed dose differences between two calculation modes for the Elekta Monaco TPS. We compared them with experimentally determined values, aiming to define a supplement to the existing TPS verification methodology. Materials and methods In our study, we used a 6 MV photon beam from a linear accelerator. To evaluate the accuracy of the TPS calculation approaches, measurements with a Farmer type chamber in a semi-anthropomorphic phantom were compared to those obtained by two calculation options. The comparison was made for three parts of the phantom having different densities, with a focus on the BDE part. Results Measured and calculated doses were in agreement for water and lung equivalent density materials, regardless of the calculation mode. However, in the BDE part of the phantom, mean dose differences between the calculation options ranged from 5.7 to 8.3%, depending on the method used. In the BDE part of the phantom, neither of the two calculation options were consistent with experimentally determined absorbed doses. Conclusions Based on our findings, we proposed a supplement to the current methodology for the verification of commercial MC based TPS by performing additional measurements in BDE material.

Evaluation of two-dimensional dose distributions for pre-treatment patient-specific IMRT dosimetry.

Background The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial for success of the radiotherapy treatment. One of the methods that represent the current standard for patient-specific dosimetry is the evaluation of dose distributions measured with an ionization chamber array inside a homogeneous phantom using gamma method. Nevertheless, this method does not replicate the realistic conditions present when a patient is undergoing therapy. Therefore, to more accurately evaluate the treatment planning system (TPS) capabilities, gamma passing rates were examined for beams of different complexity passing through inhomogeneous phantoms. Materials and methods The research was performed using Siemens Oncor Expression linear accelerator, Siemens Somatom Open CT simulator and Elekta Monaco TPS. A 2D detector array was used to evaluate dose distribution accuracy in homogeneous, semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms. Validation was based on gamma analysis with 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria, respectively. Results Passing rates of the complex dose distributions degrade depending on the thickness of non-water equivalent material. They also depend on dose reporting mode used. It is observed that the passing rate decreases with plan complexity. Comparison of the data for all set-ups of semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms shows that passing rates are higher in the anthropomorphic phantom. Conclusions Presented results raise a question of possible limits of dose distribution verification in assessment of plan delivery quality. Consequently, good results obtained using standard patient specific dosimetry methodology do not guarantee the accuracy of delivered dose distribution in real clinical cases.

Comparison of calculated dose distributions reported as dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer patients.

Advanced dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy treatment planning can report external beam photon dose 2-sided, in terms of dose-to-medium (Dm) and dose-to-water (Dw). The purpose of our study was to determinate the effect of Dw and Dm reporting modes built in Elekta Monaco treatment planning system on intensity-modulated radiotherapy dose distributions for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. For 13 patients involved in this retrospective study, 2 plans were created: 1 using Dw and another according to Dm reporting mode. Treatment plans were normalized such that 100% planning target volume should be covered by 95% of prescribed dose. Dose-volume constraints were assigned according to international standards. The comparison between dose distributions was performed evaluating quantities important for respective volumes of interest. For target volumes, heterogeneity index and conformity index methodology were used along with the maximum dose concept. Also, for the comparisons over particular organ at risk, maximum dose or mean dose as well as dose-volume concepts were used. For all target volumes and majority of organs at risk, the differences between 2 reporting modes are statistically insignificant, but this is not the case for bony structured organs at risks: mandible and cochlea. It was observed that Dw is higher than Dm with mean difference of 9.91% (p = 0.000009) of the mandible volume covered with 70 Gy. The same trend was observed for left and right cochlea with difference in mean dose of 8.74% (p = 0.037) and 6.87% (p = 0.029), respectively. The comparative analysis of dosimetric parameters in this study shows that the selection of reporting modes in Monaco treatment planning system can produce dose differences up to 15% in high-density volumes such as mandible and cochlea, which might have clinical consequences.