Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation

被引:211
作者
Van Esch, Ann
Tillikainen, Laura
Pyykkonen, Jukka
Tenhunen, Mikko
Helminen, Hannu
Siljamaki, Sami
Alakuijala, Jyrki
Paiusco, Marta
Iori, Mauro
Huyskens, Dominique P.
机构
[1] Varian Med Syst, Helsinki, Finland
[2] Helsinki Univ Hosp, Helsinki, Finland
[3] Varian Med Syst, Helsinki, Finland
[4] San Maria Nuova Hosp, Reggio Emilia, Italy
关键词
D O I
10.1118/1.2358333
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 analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system to replace the single pencil beam (SPB) algorithm for the calculation of dose distributions for photon beams. AAA was developed to improve the dose calculation accuracy, especially in heterogeneous media. The total dose deposition is calculated as the super-position of the dose deposited by two photon sources (primary and secondary) and by an electron contamination source. The photon dose is calculated as a three-dimensional convolution of MonteCarlo precalculated scatter kernels, scaled according to the electron density matrix. For the configuration of AAA, an optimization algorithm determines the parameters characterizing the multiple source model by optimizing the agreement between the calculated and measured depth dose curves and profiles for the basic beam data. We have combined the acceptance tests obtained in three different departments for 6, 15, and 18 MV photon beams. The accuracy of AAA was tested for different field sizes (symmetric and asymmetric) for open fields, wedged fields, and static and dynamic multileaf collimation fields. Depth dose behavior at different source-to-phantom distances was investigated. Measurements were performed on homogeneous, water equivalent phantoms, on simple phantoms containing cork inhomogeneities, and on the thorax of an anthropomorphic phantom. Comparisons were made among measurements, AAA, and SPB calculations. The optimization procedure for the configuration of the algorithm was successful in reproducing the basic beam data with an overall accuracy of 3%, 1 mm in the build-up region, and 1%, 1 mm elsewhere. Testing of the algorithm in more clinical setups showed comparable results for depth dose curves, profiles, and monitor units of symmetric open and wedged beams below d(max). The electron contamination model was found to be suboptimal to model the dose around d(max,) especially for physical wedges at smaller source to phantom distances. For the asymmetric field verification, absolute dose difference of up to 4% were observed for the most extreme asymmetries. Compared to the SPB, the penumbra modeling is considerably improved (1%, 1 mm). At the interface between solid water and cork, profiles show a better agreement with AAA. Depth dose curves in the cork are substantially better with AAA than with SPB. Improvements are more pronounced for 18 MV than for 6,MV. Point dose measurements in the thoracic phantom are mostly within 5%. In general, we can conclude that, compared to SPB, AAA improves the accuracy of dose calculations. Particular progress was made with respect to the penumbra and low dose regions. In heterogeneous materials, improvements are substantial and more pronounced for high (18 MV) than for low (6 MV) energies. (c) 2006 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:4130 / 4148
页数:19
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] COLLAPSED CONE CONVOLUTION OF RADIANT ENERGY FOR PHOTON DOSE CALCULATION IN HETEROGENEOUS MEDIA
    AHNESJO, A
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1989, 16 (04) : 577 - 592
  • [2] The impact of electron transport on the accuracy of computed dose
    Arnfield, MR
    Siantar, CH
    Siebers, J
    Garmon, P
    Cox, L
    Mohan, R
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2000, 27 (06) : 1266 - 1274
  • [3] Experimental verification of convolution /superposition photon dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning
    Aspradakis, MM
    Morrison, RH
    Richmond, ND
    Steele, A
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2003, 48 (17) : 2873 - 2893
  • [4] Baird C T, 2001, J Appl Clin Med Phys, V2, P73, DOI 10.1120/1.1359296
  • [5] BATHO HF, 1964, J CAN ASSOC RADIOL, V15, P39
  • [6] Commissioning and quality assurance-of the Pinnacle3 radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons
    Bedford, JL
    Childs, PJ
    Hansen, VN
    Mosleh-Shirazi, MA
    Verhaegen, F
    Warrington, AP
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2003, 76 (903) : 163 - 176
  • [7] Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial 3D treatment planning system using the AAPM Task Group 23 test package
    Borca, VC
    Pasquino, M
    Bresciani, S
    Catuzzo, P
    Ozzello, F
    Tofani, S
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 32 (03) : 744 - 751
  • [8] The influence of beam model differences in the comparison of dose calculation algorithms for lung cancer treatment planning
    Chetty, IJ
    Rosu, M
    McShan, DL
    Fraass, BA
    Ten Haken, RK
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (05) : 801 - 815
  • [9] Photon beam relative dose validation of the DPM Monte Carlo code in lung-equivalent media
    Chetty, IJ
    Charland, PM
    Tyagi, N
    McShan, DL
    Fraass, BA
    Bielajew, AF
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (04) : 563 - 573
  • [10] A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation
    Depuydt, T
    Van Esch, A
    Huyskens, DP
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2002, 62 (03) : 309 - 319