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
  • [41] Out-of-Field Dose Calculation by a Commercial Treatment Planning System and Comparison by Monte Carlo Simulation for Varian TrueBeam®
    Shine, N. S.
    Paramu, Raghukumar
    Gopinath, M.
    Bos, R. C. Jaon
    Jayadevan, P. M.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 44 (03) : 156 - 175
  • [42] Comparison of dosimetric and radiobiological parameters on plans for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy using an endorectal balloon for different dose-calculation algorithms and delivery-beam modes
    Kang, Sang-Won
    Suh, Tae-Suk
    Chung, Jin-Beom
    Eom, Keun-Yong
    Song, Changhoon
    Kim, In-Ah
    Kim, Jae-Sung
    Lee, Jeong-Woo
    Cho, Woong
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 70 (04) : 424 - 430
  • [43] Still equivalent for dose calculation in the Monte Carlo era? A comparison of free breathing and average intensity projection CT datasets for lung SBRT using three generations of dose calculation algorithms
    Zvolanek, Kristina
    Ma, Rongtao
    Zhou, Christina
    Liang, Xiaoying
    Wang, Shuo
    Verma, Vivek
    Zhu, Xiaofeng
    Zhang, Qinghui
    Driewer, Joseph
    Lin, Chi
    Zhen, Weining
    Wahl, Andrew
    Zhou, Su-Min
    Zheng, Dandan
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (05) : 1939 - 1947
  • [44] Assessment of four dose calculation algorithms using IAEA-TECDOC-1583 with medium dependency correction factor (K med ) application
    Rostami, Aram
    Khalid, Abdul Sattar
    Ghafari, Hamed
    Paloor, Satheesh Prasad
    Peltier, Bevan Orville
    Hammoud, Rabih
    Abdelrahman, Shihab
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2024, 122
  • [45] Evaluating small field dosimetry with the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in the eclipse treatment planning system
    Behinaein, Sepideh
    Osei, Ernest
    Darko, Johnson
    Charland, Paule
    Bassi, Dylan
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2019, 18 (04) : 353 - 364
  • [46] Evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for mesothelioma, focusing on low doses to the contralateral lung
    Court, Laurence E.
    Ching, David
    Schofield, Deborah
    Czerminska, Maria
    Allen, Aaron M.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 10 (02): : 34 - 42
  • [47] Deep DoseNet: a deep neural network for accurate dosimetric transformation between different spatial resolutions and/or different dose calculation algorithms for precision radiation therapy
    Dong, Peng
    Xing, Lei
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2020, 65 (03)
  • [48] A comparison between anisotropic analytical and multigrid superposition dose calculation algorithms in radiotherapy treatment planning
    Wu, Vincent W. C.
    Tse, Teddy K. H.
    Ho, Cola L. M.
    Yeung, Eric C. Y.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2013, 38 (02) : 209 - 214
  • [49] A Monte Carlo evaluation of dose distribution of commercial treatment planning systems in heterogeneous media
    Hasani, Mohsen
    Mohammadi, Kheirollah
    Ghorbani, Mahdi
    Gholami, Soraya
    Knaup, Courtney
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2019, 15 : S127 - S134
  • [50] Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of two computational algorithms in VMAT treatment plans
    Tsimpoukelli, Maria
    Patatoukas, George
    Chalkia, Marina
    Kollaros, Nikolaos
    Kougioumtzopoulou, Andromachi
    Michaletou, Dimitra
    Kouloulias, Vassilis
    Platoni, Kalliopi
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 24 (09):