Comparison of four commercial dose calculation algorithms in different evaluation tests

被引:3
|
作者
Rostami, Aram [1 ]
De Castro Neto, Aluisio Jose [1 ]
Paloor, Satheesh Prasad [1 ]
Khalid, Abdul Sattar [1 ]
Hammoud, Rabih [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Ctr Canc Care & Res, Dept Radiat Oncol, Doha, Qatar
关键词
Treatment Planning System (TPS); Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA); Acuros (AXB); collapsed cone; convolution (CCC); Monte Carlo (MC); TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM; MONTE-CARLO; CLINICAL IMPLEMENTATION; DOSIMETRIC ACCURACY; ACUROS XB; PHOTON; VALIDATION; ENERGY; VERIFICATION; RADIOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.3233/XST-230079
中图分类号
TH7 [仪器、仪表];
学科分类号
0804 ; 080401 ; 081102 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Accurate and fast dose calculation is crucial in modern radiation therapy. Four dose calculation algorithms (AAA, AXB, CCC, and MC) are available in Varian Eclipse and RaySearch Laboratories RayStation Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate and compare dosimetric accuracy of the four dose calculation algorithms applying to homogeneous and heterogeneous media, VMAT plans (based on AAPM TG-119 test cases), and the surface and buildup regions. METHODS: The four algorithms are assessed in homogeneous (IAEA-TECDOCE 1540) and heterogeneous (IAEATECDOC 1583) media. Dosimetric evaluation accuracy for VMAT plans is then analyzed, along with the evaluation of the accuracy of algorithms applying to the surface and buildup regions. RESULTS: Tests conducted in homogeneous media revealed that all algorithms exhibit dose deviations within 5% for various conditions, with pass rates exceeding 95% based on recommended tolerances. Additionally, the tests conducted in heterogeneous media demonstrate high pass rates for all algorithms, with a 100% pass rate observed for 6MV and mostly 100% pass rate for 15MV, except for CCC, which achieves a pass rate of 94%. The results of gamma index pass rate (GIPR) for dose calculation algorithms in IMRT fields show that GIPR (3%/3 mm) for all four algorithms in all evaluated tests based on TG119, are greater than 97%. The results of the algorithm testing for the accuracy of superficial dose reveal variations in dose differences, ranging from -11.9% to 7.03% for 15MV and -9.5% to 3.3% for 6MV, respectively. It is noteworthy that the AXB and MC algorithms demonstrate relatively lower discrepancies compared to the other algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that generally, two dose calculation algorithms (AXB and MC) that calculate dose in medium have better accuracy than other two dose calculation algorithms (CCC and AAA) that calculate dose to water.
引用
收藏
页码:1013 / 1033
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Superficial dose evaluation of four dose calculation algorithms
    Cao, Ying
    Yang, Xiaoyu
    Yang, Zhen
    Qiu, Xiaoping
    Lv, Zhiping
    Lei, Mingjun
    Liu, Gui
    Zhang, Zijian
    Hu, Yongmei
    [J]. RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, 2017, 137 : 23 - 28
  • [2] Superficial dose verification of four dose calculation algorithms
    Cao, Y.
    Yang, Z.
    Yang, X.
    Qiu, X.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 119 : S166 - S166
  • [3] Accuracy of dose calculation by commercial IMRT algorithms
    Sixel, K
    Nico, A
    O'Brien, P
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (07) : 1943 - 1944
  • [4] Stereotactic irradiation intrapulmonary Lesions: Comparison of different Dose calculation algorithms
    Pachmann, S.
    Troeller, A.
    Soehn, M.
    Ganswindt, U.
    Belka, C.
    [J]. STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2012, 188 : 22 - 22
  • [5] Comparison of dose distributions calculated with different dose calculation algorithms in pulmonary lung lesions in order to analyze the influence of different algorithms on the dose prescription
    Correia, D.
    Shrestha, B. K.
    Schmidhalter, D.
    Klass, N. D.
    Henzen, D.
    Malthaner, M.
    Mertineit, N.
    Zaugg, K.
    Schmuecking, M.
    [J]. STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2015, 191 : S60 - S61
  • [6] Evaluation of Dose Level Differences Across a Range of Target Sizes for Two Commercial Dose Calculation Algorithms
    Gardner, S.
    Wang, S.
    Snyder, K.
    Huang, Y.
    Smith, C.
    Chetty, I.
    Miller, B.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (06) : E931 - E931
  • [7] Evaluation of the accuracy of various dose calculation algorithms of a commercial treatment planning system in the presence of hip prosthesis and comparison with Monte Carlo
    Mohammadi, Kheirollah
    Hassani, Mohsen
    Ghorbani, Mahdi
    Farhood, Bagher
    Knaup, Courtney
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2017, 13 (03) : 501 - 509
  • [8] Evaluation of the influence of contoured tops for different dose calculation algorithms in treatment planning
    Schneider, F.
    Bauer, L.
    Stieler, F.
    Lohr, F.
    Wenz, F.
    [J]. STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2010, 186 : 101 - 101
  • [9] SARS-CoV-2 Serology: Utility and Limits of Different Antigen-Based Tests through the Evaluation and the Comparison of Four Commercial Tests
    Gdoura, Mariem
    Halouani, Habib
    Sahli, Donia
    Mrad, Mehdi
    Chamsa, Wafa
    Mabrouk, Manel
    Hogga, Nahed
    Ben-Salem, Kamel
    Triki, Henda
    [J]. BIOMEDICINES, 2022, 10 (12)
  • [10] Stereotactic radiotherapy of intrapulmonary lesions: comparison of different dose calculation algorithms for Oncentra MasterPlan®
    Almut Troeller
    Sylvia Garny
    Sophia Pachmann
    Steffi Kantz
    Sabine Gerum
    Farkhad Manapov
    Ute Ganswindt
    Claus Belka
    Matthias Söhn
    [J]. Radiation Oncology, 10