Verification of calculations carried out with the Eclipse treatment planning system

Open access

Abstract

The goal of radiotherapy is to deliver prescribed dose to the target volume and simultaneously minimize the dose to the healthy organs. The purpose of this work was to verify the accuracy of calculations carried out with a treatment planning system (TPS). Measurements carried out with thermoluminescence detectors (TLDs) were compared with doses calculated with TPS. Doses were measured and calculated both in the open beam’s region and under individual blocks. Measurements were performed in the Randophantom. The work was carried out for photon beams generated in the Varian CLINAC 2100C accelerator. The maximum / minimum percentage differences between measured and calculated doses were 4.9/0.6%, 2.6/0%, and 3.5%/0.5% in open, shielded and partially shielded points, respectively. Differences between the measured and calculated doses were within acceptable limits.

[1] Brahme A. Dosimetric precision requirements in radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1984;23(5):379-391.

[2] Thwaites D. Accuracy required and achievable in radiotherapy dosimetry: have modern technology and techniques changed our views? In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 444, IOP Publishing, 2013, p. 012006.

[3] IAEA. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, Technical Reports Series TRS-398; 2000.

[4] ICRU. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50), ICRU report 62; 1982.

[5] IAEA, Investigation of an accidental exposure of radiotherapy patients in Panama, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001.

[6] IAEA. Lessons learned from accidental exposures in radiotherapy, IAEA Safety Reports Series 17; 59-61. 2000.

[7] Nisbet A, Beange I, Vollmar HS, et al. Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situations. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73(1):79-88.

[8] Davidson SE, Ibbott GS, Prado KL, et al. Accuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. Med Phys. 2007;34(5):1850-1857.

[9] Cheng CW, Das IJ, Tang W, et al. Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38(4):835-842.

[10] Van Dyk J. Quality assurance of radiation therapy planning systems: current status and remaining challenges. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1):S23-S27.

[11] Alderson SW, Lanzl LH, Rollins M, et al. An instrumented phantom system for analog computation of treatment plans. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1962;87:185-195.

[12] Caprile PF, Venencia CD, Besa P. Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007;8(1):47-54.

[13] Fogliata A, Vanetti E, Albers D, et al. On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(5):1363-1385.

[14] Chavaudra J, Bridier A. Definition of volumes in external radiotherapy: ICRU reports 50 and 62. Cancer Radiothérapie. 2001;5(5): 472-478.

[15] Essers M, Mijnheer B. In vivo dosimetry during external photon beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43(2):245-259.

[16] Mijnheer BJ, Battermann JJ, Wambersie A. What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neutron therapy? Radiother Oncol. 1987;8(3):237-252.

[17] Ågren A, Brahme A, Turesson I. Optimization of uncomplicated control for head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19(4):1077-1085.

[18] McKeever SWS, Moscovitch M, Townsend PD. Thermoluminescence dosimetry materials: properties and uses. Nuclear Technology Publishing, Ashford, 1995.

[19] Ramani R, Russell S, O’Brien P. Clinical dosimetry using MOSFETs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37(4):959-964.

[20] Butson MJ, Rozenfeld A, Mathur JN, et al. A new radiotherapy surface dose detector: the MOSFET. Med Phys. 1996;23(5):655-658.

[21] Gladstone DJ, Chin LM. Real-time, in vivo measurement of radiation dose during radioimmunotherapy in mice using a miniature MOSFET dosimeter probe/Radiat Res. 1995;141(3):330-335.

[22] Rosenblatt E, Zubizarreta E, Wondergem J, et al. The international atomic energy agency (IAEA): An active role in the global fight against cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;104(3):269-271.

[23] Izewska JE, Bera P, Vatnitsky S. IAEA/WHO TLD postal dose audit service and high precision measurements for radiotherapy level dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2002;101(1-4):387-392.

[24] Ferreira IH, Dutreix A, Bridier A, et al. The ESTRO-QUALity assurance network (EQUAL) for European radiotherapy centers, in: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE,Vol. 4, IEEE, 2000, pp. 3112–3113.

[25] Terohid SA, Fayaz V. Estimating the absorbed dose to thyroid during chest wall radiotherapy. International Journal of Medical, Health, Biomedical,Bioengineering and Pharmaceutical Engineering. 2011;5(11):638-640.

[26] Budanec M, Bokulić T, Mrčela I, et al. Radiation treatment planning system verification. In: Proceedings International conference on quality assurance and new techniques in radiation medicine; Vienna (Austria); 13-15 Nov 2006.

[27] Farajollahi AR, Bouzarjomehri F, Kiani M. Comparison between clinically used irregular fields shielded by cerrobend and standard lead blocks. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2015;5(2):77-82.

[28] Khan FM, Gibbons JP. Khan’s the physics of radiation therapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

The Journal of Polish Society of Medical Physics

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.19
ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.104
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.233

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 118 118 11
PDF Downloads 86 86 5