Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing

Purpose To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different ins...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2013, Vol.85 (1), p.e95-e100
Hauptverfasser: Kry, Stephen F., PhD, Alvarez, Paola, MS, Molineu, Andrea, MS, Amador, Carrie, BS, Galvin, James, DSc, Followill, David S., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e100
container_issue 1
container_start_page e95
container_title International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
container_volume 85
creator Kry, Stephen F., PhD
Alvarez, Paola, MS
Molineu, Andrea, MS
Amador, Carrie, BS
Galvin, James, DSc
Followill, David S., PhD
description Purpose To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. Results PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. Conclusion Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3522855</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0360301612035067</els_id><sourcerecordid>1239058389</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-b54fee1a219952b00f7a6145b16a71943a19f618ddae05d9a6e5ab86c9f8b3853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUs1u1DAYjBCIlsIbIGSJA1x28U-cxBek1RZapKKi7lZwsxzny8ZLYi-2U9h34-Fw2FJ-Lpws2TPzzeeZLHtK8JxgUrzazs3Wu3o3p5jQOa7mmIl72TGpSjFjnH-6nx1jVuAZS-Cj7FEIW4wxIWX-MDuijLIS4-I4-77oN86b2A0BXQdokLHoHCJ4twELbgzo1AVAS9XrsVfROBvQqnNf0WofIgzpRqNT07bgwWoISAX0HlQYfZL6mGRR7ABdqca43m2MVj360O2D0QEtwaYxLwJa2Nh5t3OD87suya0759W3hFM2uuHgqnUeXa0vz9AyCSeiUb2xm8fZg1b1AZ7cnifZ9ds36-X57OLy7N1ycTHTPC_irOZ5C0AUJUJwWmPclqogOa9JoUoicqaIaAtSNY0CzBuhCuCqrgot2qpmFWcn2euD7m6sB2h0MuBVL3feDMrvpVNG_v1iTSc37kYyTmnFJ4HnBwEXopFBmwi6085a0FFSSnJR5lVCvbwd492XEUKUgwka-l79TEISygTmFatEguYHqPYuBA_tnRmC5VQPuZWHesipHhJXMtUj0Z79ucgd6Vcffm8K6TtvDPjJ7JRsY_zktXHmfxP-FdApqSn4z7CHsHWjtykqSWRIHLmaKjo1lFDMOC5K9gOiy-dJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1239058389</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Kry, Stephen F., PhD ; Alvarez, Paola, MS ; Molineu, Andrea, MS ; Amador, Carrie, BS ; Galvin, James, DSc ; Followill, David S., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Kry, Stephen F., PhD ; Alvarez, Paola, MS ; Molineu, Andrea, MS ; Amador, Carrie, BS ; Galvin, James, DSc ; Followill, David S., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. Results PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. Conclusion Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-3016</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-355X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23237006</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>ACCURACY ; ALGORITHMS ; ANISOTROPY ; Cancer Care Facilities ; CHEST ; CLINICAL TRIALS ; Credentialing ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; IRRADIATION ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; LUNGS ; MONTE CARLO METHOD ; PHANTOMS ; Phantoms, Imaging ; PLANNING ; RADIATION DOSES ; Radiation Oncology ; Radiography ; Radiology ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; RADIOTHERAPY ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Conformal ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Retrospective Studies ; Thorax</subject><ispartof>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2013, Vol.85 (1), p.e95-e100</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-b54fee1a219952b00f7a6145b16a71943a19f618ddae05d9a6e5ab86c9f8b3853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-b54fee1a219952b00f7a6145b16a71943a19f618ddae05d9a6e5ab86c9f8b3853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,4024,27923,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237006$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22149748$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kry, Stephen F., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alvarez, Paola, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Molineu, Andrea, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amador, Carrie, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvin, James, DSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Followill, David S., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing</title><title>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</title><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. Results PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. Conclusion Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.</description><subject>ACCURACY</subject><subject>ALGORITHMS</subject><subject>ANISOTROPY</subject><subject>Cancer Care Facilities</subject><subject>CHEST</subject><subject>CLINICAL TRIALS</subject><subject>Credentialing</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>IRRADIATION</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>LUNGS</subject><subject>MONTE CARLO METHOD</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>PLANNING</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSES</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>RADIOTHERAPY</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Conformal</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Thorax</subject><issn>0360-3016</issn><issn>1879-355X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUs1u1DAYjBCIlsIbIGSJA1x28U-cxBek1RZapKKi7lZwsxzny8ZLYi-2U9h34-Fw2FJ-Lpws2TPzzeeZLHtK8JxgUrzazs3Wu3o3p5jQOa7mmIl72TGpSjFjnH-6nx1jVuAZS-Cj7FEIW4wxIWX-MDuijLIS4-I4-77oN86b2A0BXQdokLHoHCJ4twELbgzo1AVAS9XrsVfROBvQqnNf0WofIgzpRqNT07bgwWoISAX0HlQYfZL6mGRR7ABdqca43m2MVj360O2D0QEtwaYxLwJa2Nh5t3OD87suya0759W3hFM2uuHgqnUeXa0vz9AyCSeiUb2xm8fZg1b1AZ7cnifZ9ds36-X57OLy7N1ycTHTPC_irOZ5C0AUJUJwWmPclqogOa9JoUoicqaIaAtSNY0CzBuhCuCqrgot2qpmFWcn2euD7m6sB2h0MuBVL3feDMrvpVNG_v1iTSc37kYyTmnFJ4HnBwEXopFBmwi6085a0FFSSnJR5lVCvbwd492XEUKUgwka-l79TEISygTmFatEguYHqPYuBA_tnRmC5VQPuZWHesipHhJXMtUj0Z79ucgd6Vcffm8K6TtvDPjJ7JRsY_zktXHmfxP-FdApqSn4z7CHsHWjtykqSWRIHLmaKjo1lFDMOC5K9gOiy-dJ</recordid><startdate>2013</startdate><enddate>2013</enddate><creator>Kry, Stephen F., PhD</creator><creator>Alvarez, Paola, MS</creator><creator>Molineu, Andrea, MS</creator><creator>Amador, Carrie, BS</creator><creator>Galvin, James, DSc</creator><creator>Followill, David S., PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2013</creationdate><title>Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing</title><author>Kry, Stephen F., PhD ; Alvarez, Paola, MS ; Molineu, Andrea, MS ; Amador, Carrie, BS ; Galvin, James, DSc ; Followill, David S., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c546t-b54fee1a219952b00f7a6145b16a71943a19f618ddae05d9a6e5ab86c9f8b3853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>ACCURACY</topic><topic>ALGORITHMS</topic><topic>ANISOTROPY</topic><topic>Cancer Care Facilities</topic><topic>CHEST</topic><topic>CLINICAL TRIALS</topic><topic>Credentialing</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>IRRADIATION</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>LUNGS</topic><topic>MONTE CARLO METHOD</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>PLANNING</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSES</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>RADIOTHERAPY</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Conformal</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Thorax</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kry, Stephen F., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alvarez, Paola, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Molineu, Andrea, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amador, Carrie, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvin, James, DSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Followill, David S., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kry, Stephen F., PhD</au><au>Alvarez, Paola, MS</au><au>Molineu, Andrea, MS</au><au>Amador, Carrie, BS</au><au>Galvin, James, DSc</au><au>Followill, David S., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing</atitle><jtitle>International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys</addtitle><date>2013</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e95</spage><epage>e100</epage><pages>e95-e100</pages><issn>0360-3016</issn><eissn>1879-355X</eissn><abstract>Purpose To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. Results PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. Conclusion Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23237006</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0360-3016
ispartof International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2013, Vol.85 (1), p.e95-e100
issn 0360-3016
1879-355X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3522855
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects ACCURACY
ALGORITHMS
ANISOTROPY
Cancer Care Facilities
CHEST
CLINICAL TRIALS
Credentialing
Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine
IRRADIATION
Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy
LUNGS
MONTE CARLO METHOD
PHANTOMS
Phantoms, Imaging
PLANNING
RADIATION DOSES
Radiation Oncology
Radiography
Radiology
RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
RADIOTHERAPY
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Conformal
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
Retrospective Studies
Thorax
title Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Differences as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T23%3A02%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Algorithms%20Used%20in%20Heterogeneous%20Dose%20Calculations%20Show%20Systematic%20Differences%20as%20Measured%20With%20the%20Radiological%20Physics%20Center's%20Anthropomorphic%20Thorax%20Phantom%20Used%20for%20RTOG%20Credentialing&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20radiation%20oncology,%20biology,%20physics&rft.au=Kry,%20Stephen%20F.,%20PhD&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e95&rft.epage=e100&rft.pages=e95-e100&rft.issn=0360-3016&rft.eissn=1879-355X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1239058389%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1239058389&rft_id=info:pmid/23237006&rft_els_id=S0360301612035067&rfr_iscdi=true