Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems

An extensive set of measured data was developed for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of a photon dose‐calculation algorithm. Dose distributions from a linear accelerator were measured using an ion chamber in a water phantom and thermoluminescent dosimeters in a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. Test cases included square fields, rectangular fields, fields having different source‐to‐surface distances, wedged fields, irregular fields, obliquely incident fields, asymmetrically collimated fields with wedges, multileaf collimator‐shaped fields, and two heterogeneous density cases. The data set was used to validate the photon dose‐calculation algorithm in a commercial radiation treatment planning system. The treatment planning system calculated photon doses to within the American College of Medical Physics (AAPM) Task Group 53 (TG‐53) criteria for 99% of points in the buildup region, 90% of points in the inner region, 88% of points in the outer region, and 93% of points in the penumbra. For the heterogeneous phantoms, calculations agreed with actual measurements to within ±3%. The monitor unit tests revealed that the 18‐MV open square fields, oblique incidence, oblique incidence with wedge, and mantle field test cases did not meet the TG‐53 criteria but were within ±2.5% of measurements. It was concluded that (i) the photon dose calculation algorithm used by the treatment planning system did not meet the TG‐53 criteria 100% of the time; (ii) some of the TG‐53 criteria may need to be modified, and (iii) the generally stated goal of accuracy in dose delivery of within 5% cannot be met in all situations using this beam model in the treatment planning system.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

\geq 3 %

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification of the accuracy of a photon dose‐calculation algorithm

Gifford

Followill

Liu

et al. 2002

“…In response, new datasets have been produced to address the extended capabilities and varying photon energies. ( 12 , 13 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

Breitman

Rathee

Newcomb

et al. 2007

The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA.At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.”For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided.PACS number: 87.53.Dq

“…The concept of confidence limit (CL) is employed to represent a true picture of midline dose uniformity, by incorporating the mean and standard deviation (SD) of dose distribution. The confidence limit, as defined by Venselaar et al, (18) is calculated as:

C L = | M e a n D e v i a t i o n | + 1.5 \times S italictan d a r d D e v i a t i o n

A midline dose profile in the superior‐inferior direction is shown in Fig. 3(a) for AMT‐TBI versus SMT‐TBI.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating bed total body irradiation lung shielding and dose optimization using asymmetric MLC apertures

Salhi

Brown

Ahmed

et al. 2016

A revised translating bed total body irradiation (TBI) technique is developed for shielding organs at risk (lungs) to tolerance dose limits, and optimizing dose distribution in three dimensions (3D) using an asymmetrically‐adjusted, dynamic multileaf collimator. We present a dosimetric comparison of this technique with a previously developed symmetric MLC‐based TBI technique. An anthropomorphic RANDO phantom is CT scanned with 3 mm slice thickness. Radiological depths (RD) are calculated on individual CT slices along the divergent ray lines. Asymmetric MLC apertures are defined every 9 mm over the phantom length in the craniocaudal direction. Individual asymmetric MLC leaf positions are optimized based on RD values of all slices for uniform dose distributions. Dose calculations are performed in the Eclipse treatment planning system over these optimized MLC apertures. Dose uniformity along midline of the RANDO phantom is within the confidence limit (CL) of 2.1% (with a confidence probability p=0.065). The issue of over‐ and underdose at the interfaces that is observed when symmetric MLC apertures are used is reduced from more than ±4% to less than ±1.5% with asymmetric MLC apertures. Lungs are shielded by 20%, 30%, and 40% of the prescribed dose by adjusting the MLC apertures. Dose‐volume histogram analysis confirms that the revised technique provides effective lung shielding, as well as a homogeneous dose coverage to the whole body. The asymmetric technique also reduces hot and cold spots at lung‐tissue interfaces compared to previous symmetric MLC‐based TBI technique. MLC‐based shielding of OARs eliminates the need to fabricate and setup cumbersome patient‐specific physical blocks.PACS number(s): 87.55.‐x, 87.55.de, 87.55.D‐