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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2013, Vol.85 (1), p.e95-e100 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 |