Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2015
Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for static and rotational IMRT of lung cancer: A phantom study.
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.
Sini Carla, Broggi Sara, Fiorino Claudio, Cattaneo Giovanni Mauro, Calandrino Riccardo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of Pencil beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition (CCCS) in thoracic tumours for various IMRT techniques.
METHODS: Step-and-shoot Linac IMRT (IMRT), arc volumetric RapidArc (RA) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) lung treatments for different clinical situations (mediastinum tumour, single metastasis and multiple metastases) were simulated and calculated with PB/AAA, AAA, CCCS, respectively. Delivery quality assurance plans were first verified in homogeneous media (Cheese phantom and ArcCHECK); then several low-density inhomogeneous phantoms were used: the Multiplug ArcCHECK, the commercial ArcCHECK slightly modified with a low density lung-shape insert and a custom-made slab heterogeneous phantom simulating the thorax region. Absolute doses and planar dose maps were checked to assess the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
RESULTS: In total, data referred to 195 point dose measurements and 189 planar measurements were considered. Average point absolute deviations <3% were found for all the delivery techniques/dose algorithms. In small targets completely embedded in very low density media, deviations up to 7-10% and 4-5% were found for PB and AAA/CCCS respectively. Excellent results were found for planar measurements in ArcCHECK configurations, where ≥ 95% of points satisfy the 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria for all the algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS: A satisfactory agreement (<2%) between planned and measured doses was generally found for CCCS and AAA, excepting the very critical situation of a small tumour completely embedded in air. A significant dose overestimation (from few to 5-7%) was confirmed for PB in complex inhomogeneous arrangements.
METHODS: Step-and-shoot Linac IMRT (IMRT), arc volumetric RapidArc (RA) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) lung treatments for different clinical situations (mediastinum tumour, single metastasis and multiple metastases) were simulated and calculated with PB/AAA, AAA, CCCS, respectively. Delivery quality assurance plans were first verified in homogeneous media (Cheese phantom and ArcCHECK); then several low-density inhomogeneous phantoms were used: the Multiplug ArcCHECK, the commercial ArcCHECK slightly modified with a low density lung-shape insert and a custom-made slab heterogeneous phantom simulating the thorax region. Absolute doses and planar dose maps were checked to assess the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
RESULTS: In total, data referred to 195 point dose measurements and 189 planar measurements were considered. Average point absolute deviations <3% were found for all the delivery techniques/dose algorithms. In small targets completely embedded in very low density media, deviations up to 7-10% and 4-5% were found for PB and AAA/CCCS respectively. Excellent results were found for planar measurements in ArcCHECK configurations, where ≥ 95% of points satisfy the 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria for all the algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS: A satisfactory agreement (<2%) between planned and measured doses was generally found for CCCS and AAA, excepting the very critical situation of a small tumour completely embedded in air. A significant dose overestimation (from few to 5-7%) was confirmed for PB in complex inhomogeneous arrangements.