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
  • [21] Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm in heterogeneous media
    Fogliata, Antonella
    Nicolini, Giorgia
    Clivio, Alessandro
    Vanetti, Eugenio
    Cozzi, Luca
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2011, 6
  • [22] Clinical implications of different calculation algorithms in breast radiotherapy: A comparison between pencil beam and collapsed cone convolution
    Cilla, S.
    Digesu, C.
    Macchia, G.
    Deodato, F.
    Sallustio, G.
    Piermattei, A.
    Morganti, A. G.
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 30 (04): : 473 - 481
  • [23] Evaluation of heterogeneity dose distributions for Stereotactic Radiotherapy (SRT): comparison of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation with other algorithms
    Wataru Takahashi
    Hideomi Yamashita
    Naoya Saotome
    Yoshio Iwai
    Akira Sakumi
    Akihiro Haga
    Keiichi Nakagawa
    Radiation Oncology, 7
  • [24] Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system for adjacent radiation fields
    Rasouli, Ali
    Arani, Mahmud Naraqi
    Aliasgharzadeh, Akbar
    Farhood, Bagher
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2023, 22
  • [25] Dosimetric Comparison of Different Dose Calculation Algorithms in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients Using Conformal Planning Techniques
    Gaur, Garima
    Dangwal, Vinod Kumar
    Banipal, Raja Paramjeet Singh
    Singh, Ranjit
    Kaur, Gurpreet
    Grover, Romikant
    Sachdeva, Sheetal
    Kang, Manraj Singh
    Singh, Simrandeep
    Garg, Pardeep
    Singh, Baltej
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 48 (02) : 136 - 145
  • [26] Comparison of CCC and ETAR dose calculation algorithms in pituitary adenoma radiation treatment planning; Monte Carlo evaluation
    Tanha, K.
    Mahdavi, S. R.
    Geraily, G.
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2014, 13 (04) : 447 - 455
  • [27] Comprehensive evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm
    Zhang, Aizhen
    Wen, Ning
    Nurushev, Teamour
    Burmeister, Jay
    Chetty, Indrin J.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 14 (02): : 127 - 145
  • [28] A comprehensive evaluation of advanced dose calculation algorithms for brain stereotactic radiosurgery
    Yoon, Jihyung
    Jung, Hyunuk
    Tanny, Sean M.
    Lemus, Olga Maria Dona
    Milano, Michael T.
    Hardy, Sara J.
    Usuki, Kenneth Y.
    Zheng, Dandan
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 24 (11):
  • [29] Evaluation of a commercial MRI Linac based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm with GEANT4
    Ahmad, Syed Bilal
    Sarfehnia, Arman
    Paudel, Moti Raj
    Kim, Anthony
    Hissoiny, Sami
    Sahgal, Arjun
    Keller, Brian
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (02) : 894 - 907
  • [30] Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma
    Kolacio, Manda Svabic
    Rajlic, David
    Radojcic, Milan
    Radojcic, Deni Smilovic
    Obajdin, Nevena
    Debeljuh, Dea Dundara
    Jurkovic, Slaven
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2022, 27 (01) : 86 - 96