Evaluation and comparison of second-check monitor unit calculation software with Pinnacle3 treatment planning system

被引:6
|
作者
Tuazon, B. [1 ,2 ]
Narayanasamy, G. [3 ]
Papanikolaou, N. [1 ,2 ]
Kirby, N. [1 ,2 ]
Mavroidis, P. [4 ]
Stathakis, S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth San Antonio, Dept Radiol, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
[2] Canc Therapy & Res Ctr S Texas, 7979 Wurzbach Rd, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
[3] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Radiat Oncol, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiat Oncol, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
关键词
2nd Check; Monitor unit check; MU validation; Independent MU verification; TPS QA; RADIATION-THERAPY COMMITTEE; VMAT FIELDS; IMRT; VERIFICATION; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.004
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of dose calculations in second check softwares (Diamond, IMSure, MuCheck, and RadCalc) against the Phillips Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system. Eighteen previously treated patients' treatment planning files consisting of a total of 204 beams were exported from the Pinnacle(3) TPS to each of the four second check software. Of these beams, 145 of the beams used were IMRT plans while 59 were VMAT arcs. The values were represented as a percent difference between primary and secondary calculations and used for statistical analysis. Box plots, Pearson Correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed in MedCalc. The mean percent difference in calculated dose for Diamond, IMSure, MuCheck, and RadCalc from Pinnacle(3) were -0.67%, 0.31%, 1.51% and -0.36%, respectively. The corresponding variances were calculated to be 0.07%, 0.13%, 0.08%, and 0.03%; and the largest percent differences were - 7.9%, 9.70%, 9.39%, and 5.45%. The dose differences of each of the second check software in this study can vary considerably and VMAT plans have larger differences than IMRT. Among the four second check softwares, RadCalc values has shown a high agreement on average with low variation, and had the smallest percent range from Pinnacle(3) values. The closest in average percent difference from the Pinnacle s data was the IMSure software, but suffered from significantly larger variance and percent range. The values reported by Diamond and MuCheck had significantly high percent differences with TPS values.
引用
收藏
页码:186 / 191
页数:6
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Evaluation and Comparison of Second-Check Monitor Unit Calculation Software with Pinnacle Treatment Planning System
    Tuazon, B.
    Narayanasamy, G.
    Kirby, N.
    Mavroidis, P.
    Papanikolaou, N.
    Stathakis, S.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3419 - 3419
  • [2] MONITOR UNIT COMPARISON BETWEEN A TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM AND AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR UNIT CALCULATION SOFTWARE
    Carreira, P.
    Madureira, L.
    Mota, M.
    Pontes, M.
    Ribeiro, T.
    Prudencio, L.
    Teixeira, N.
    Monteiro Grillo, I.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 99 : S581 - S581
  • [3] Clinical validation of solid IMRT with the Pinnacle3 radiation treatment planning system
    Savitskij, D.
    Nelms, B.
    Gluckman, G.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2079 - 2079
  • [4] Evaluation of monitor unit calculation accuracy of the pinnacle system for dynamically wedged fields
    Alaei, P
    Gerbi, B
    Higgins, P
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (06) : 1886 - 1886
  • [5] Noncoplanar verification: a feasibility study using Philips' Pinnacle3 treatment planning system
    Yohannes, Indra
    Prasetio, Heru
    Bert, Christoph
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (06): : 84 - 90
  • [6] Application of a simple monitor unit calculation program as a Physics check for the Cyberknife treatment planning calculation
    Ho, A
    Crooks, S
    Xing, L
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (06) : 1481 - 1481
  • [7] Determination of monitor unit check tolerances based on a comparison with measurement and treatment planning system data
    Curtis, Helen
    Richmond, Neil
    Burke, Kevin
    Walker, Chris
    [J]. MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2013, 38 (01) : 81 - 87
  • [8] Aspects of commissioning the Pinnacle3 Treatment Planning System for high-precision Conformal radiotherapy
    Mosleh-Shirazi, MA
    Hansen, VN
    Warrington, AP
    Childs, PJ
    Verhaegen, F
    Bedford, JL
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (06) : 1250 - 1250
  • [9] Comparison of monitor units calculated by radiotherapy treatment planning system and an independent monitor unit verification software
    Sellakumar, P.
    Arun, C.
    Sanjay, S. S.
    Ramesh, S. B.
    [J]. PHYSICA MEDICA, 2011, 27 (01) : 21 - 29
  • [10] Comparison of IMRT plans with tissue heterogeneity corrections using the Pinnacle3 and CORVUS treatment planning systems
    Pillai, S
    Ayyangar, K
    Li, S
    Nehru, R
    Zhen, W
    Enke, C
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 32 (06) : 1964 - 1964