Impact of simple tissue inhomogeneity correction algorithms on conformal radiotherapy of lung tumours

Engelsman, Martijn; Damen, E.; Koken, Phil W.; Veld, Aart A. van ‘t; Ingen, Karel M. van; Mijnheer, Ben J.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(01)00387-5

Cited by 90 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The limitations of pencil beam algorithms in treatments involving low density inhomogeneities are well documented [2,5,6,7,15,20,29]. In this study, the AAA has been shown to account for the increase in lateral electron transport in terms of the broadening of the penumbra in low density material and predicting the reduction in central axis dose in such a low density heterogeneity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Historically, one of the most serious weaknesses in treatment planning systems has been their ability to accurately predict doses in the presence of inhomogeneities, particularly through poor consideration of electron transport [7,22]. Inaccuracies in dose calculation result in systematic errors in radiotherapy treatments and so are of particular importance [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for radiotherapy treatment planning

Bragg

Conway

2006

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for radiotherapy treatment planning

Bragg

Conway

2006

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This variety of densities creates inhomogeneous medium transitions, which present a challenge for TPS algorithms to accurately predict the delivered dose. The difference between the delivered and predicted doses can be up to 20% in both the target volumes and critical organs17, 18, 19 that may require the reevaluation of treatment planning as well as the clinical outcomes when treatment is complete.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy

Elcim

Dırıcan

Yavas

2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIn this study, lung radiotherapy target volumes as well as critical organs such as the lungs, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart doses calculated using pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm‐based treatment planning systems (TPSs) were compared. The main aim was the evaluation of calculated dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms in a highly heterogeneous medium.MethodsA total of 6 MV photon energy conformal treatment plans were created for a RANDO lung phantom using one PB algorithm‐based Precise Plan Release 2.16 TPS and one MC algorithm‐based Monaco TPS. Thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) were placed into appropriate slices within the RANDO phantom and then irradiated with an Elekta‐Synergy® Linear Accelerator for dose verification. Doses were calculated for the V5, V10, V20, and mean lung doses (MLDs) in bilateral lungs and D50, D98, D2, and mean doses in the target volume (planning target volume, PTV).ResultsThe minimum, maximum, and mean doses of the target volumes and critical organs in two treatment plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVHs). The mean dose difference between the PB and MC algorithms for the PTV was 0.3%, whereas the differences in V5, V10, V20, and MLD were 12.5%, 15.8%, 14.4%, and 9.1%, respectively. The differences in PTV coverage between the two algorithms were 0.9%, 2.7% and 0.7% for D50, D98 and D2, respectively.ConclusionsA comparison of the dose data acquired in this study reveals that the MC algorithm calculations are closer to the 60 Gy prescribed dose for PTV, while the difference between the PB and MC algorithms was found to be non‐significant. Because of the major difference arising from the dose calculation techniques by TPS that was observed in the MLD with significant medium heterogeneity, we recommend the use of the MC algorithm in such heterogeneous sites.

show abstract

“…The dose calculations for inhomogeneous media also showed differences between the treatment planning dose and the irradiation dose because of the electron disequilibrium in different densities (2,3) . The reason for the dose calculation inaccuracies in inhomogeneous media was not considered the primary and scatter corrections, lateral scatter equilibrium, and rebuild up (4)(5)(6) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dose distribution evaluation of various dose calculation algorithms in inhomogeneous media

Kim

Suh

Choe

et al. 2016

IJRR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dose calcula on algorithms play a very important role in predic ng the explicit dose distribu on. We evaluated the percent depth dose (PDD), lateral depth dose profile, and surface dose volume histogram in inhomogeneous media using calcula on algorithms and inhomogeneity correc on methods. Materials and Methods: The homogeneous and inhomogeneous virtual slab phantoms used in this study were manufactured in the radia on treatment planning system to represent the air, lung, and bone density with planned radia on treatment of 6 MV photons, a field size of 10 × 10 cm 2 , and a source-to-surface distance of 100 cm. Results: The PDD of air density slab for the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was differed by an average of 20% in comparison with other algorithms. Rebuild up occurred in the region below the air density slab (10-10.6 cm) for the AXB algorithm. The lateral dose profiles for the air density slab showed rela vely large differences (over 30%) in the field. There were large differences (20.0%-26.1%) at the second homogeneous-inhomogeneous junc on (depth of 10 cm) in the field for all calcula on methods. The surface dose volume histogram for the pencil beam algorithm showed a response that was approximately 4% lower than that for the AXB algorithm. Conclusion: The dose calcula on uncertain es were shown to change at the interface between different densi es and in varied densi es using the dose calcula on methods. In par cular, the AXB algorithm showed large differences in and out of the field in inhomogeneous media.

show abstract

Impact of simple tissue inhomogeneity correction algorithms on conformal radiotherapy of lung tumours

Cited by 90 publications

References 18 publications

Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for radiotherapy treatment planning

Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for radiotherapy treatment planning

Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy

Dose distribution evaluation of various dose calculation algorithms in inhomogeneous media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About