Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
Commissioning and implementation of a pencil-beam algorithm with a Lorentz correction as a secondary dose calculation algorithm for an Elekta Unity 1.5T MR linear accelerator.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taneja Sameer, Wang Hesheng, Barbee David L, Galavis Paulina, Sosa Mario Serrano, Byun David, Zelefsky Michael, Chen Ting
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To commission a beam model in ClearCalc (Radformation Inc.) for use as a secondary dose calculation algorithm and to implement its use into an adaptive workflow for an MR-linear accelerator.
METHODS: A beam model was developed using commissioning data for an Elekta Unity MR-linear accelerator and entered into ClearCalc. The beam model consisted of absolute dose calculation settings, output factors, percent depth-dose (PDD) curves, mutli-leaf collimator (MLC) transmission and dose leaf gap error, and cryostat corrections. Beam profiles were hard-coded by the manufacturer into the beam model and were compared with Monaco-derived profiles. The beam model was tested by comparing point doses in a homogenous phantom obtained through measurements using an ionization chamber in water, Monaco, and ClearCalc for various field sizes, source-surface distances (SSDs), and point locations. Additional testing including point dose verification for test plans using a heterogeneous phantom and patient plans. Post clinical implementation, performance of ClearCalc was evaluated for the first 41 patients treated, which included 215 adaptive plans.
RESULTS: PDDs generated using ClearCalc fell within 1.2% of measurements. Field profile comparison between ClearCalc and Monaco showed an average pass rate of 98% using a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria. Measured cryostat corrections used in the beam model showed a maximum deviation from unity of 1.4%. Point dose and field monitor units (MUs) comparisons in a homogenous phantom (N = 22), heterogeneous phantoms (N = 22), and patient plans (N = 57) all passed with a threshold of 5%/5MU. Clinically, ClearCalc was implemented as a physics check post adaptive planning completed prior to beam delivery. Point dose and field MUs showed good agreement at a 5%/5MU threshold for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), pelvic lymph nodes, rectum, and prostate and lymph node plans.
DISCUSSION: This work demonstrated commissioning and clinical implementation of ClearCalc into an adaptive planning workflow. No primary or adaptive plan failures were reported with proper beam model testing.
METHODS: A beam model was developed using commissioning data for an Elekta Unity MR-linear accelerator and entered into ClearCalc. The beam model consisted of absolute dose calculation settings, output factors, percent depth-dose (PDD) curves, mutli-leaf collimator (MLC) transmission and dose leaf gap error, and cryostat corrections. Beam profiles were hard-coded by the manufacturer into the beam model and were compared with Monaco-derived profiles. The beam model was tested by comparing point doses in a homogenous phantom obtained through measurements using an ionization chamber in water, Monaco, and ClearCalc for various field sizes, source-surface distances (SSDs), and point locations. Additional testing including point dose verification for test plans using a heterogeneous phantom and patient plans. Post clinical implementation, performance of ClearCalc was evaluated for the first 41 patients treated, which included 215 adaptive plans.
RESULTS: PDDs generated using ClearCalc fell within 1.2% of measurements. Field profile comparison between ClearCalc and Monaco showed an average pass rate of 98% using a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria. Measured cryostat corrections used in the beam model showed a maximum deviation from unity of 1.4%. Point dose and field monitor units (MUs) comparisons in a homogenous phantom (N = 22), heterogeneous phantoms (N = 22), and patient plans (N = 57) all passed with a threshold of 5%/5MU. Clinically, ClearCalc was implemented as a physics check post adaptive planning completed prior to beam delivery. Point dose and field MUs showed good agreement at a 5%/5MU threshold for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), pelvic lymph nodes, rectum, and prostate and lymph node plans.
DISCUSSION: This work demonstrated commissioning and clinical implementation of ClearCalc into an adaptive planning workflow. No primary or adaptive plan failures were reported with proper beam model testing.