Comparison of Absorbed Dose to Medium and Absorbed Dose to Water for Spine IMRT Plans Using a Commercial Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System

Usmani, Muhammad Nauman; Masai, Norihisa; Oh, Ryoong‐Jin; Shiomi, Hiroya; Tatsumi, Daisaku; Miura, Hideharu; Inoue, Toshihiko; Koike, Masahiko

doi:10.4236/ijmpcero.2014.31010

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In head and neck plans, the D m,m (Acuros) average dose to bone was 2.4% lower than with D w,w (AAA), and 4.2% lower than with D w,m (Acuros) [24]. Clinical spine plans showed a difference in mean dose of only 2.9% on average (range: 1.7-4.2%) between D m,m and D w,m (Monte Carlo iPlan) [28]. Clinical prostate plans showed a difference in mean femoral head dose of 5.1% on average (range: 4.3-6.2%) between D m,m and D w,m [23].…”

Section: ) Bonementioning

confidence: 90%

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Kry

Lye

Clark

et al. 2021

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium. Methods: The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D w,w ), dose to water in medium (D w,m ), and dose to medium in medium (D m,m ). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed. Results: No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D m,m ). Conclusions: Dose to medium in medium (D m,m ) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D w,w ), this is acceptable.

show abstract

Section: ) Bonementioning

confidence: 90%

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Kry

Lye

Clark

et al. 2021

Radiotherapy and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dosimetric accuracy of LBTE has been investigated for a range of materials and treatment geometries and techniques [6][7][8][9], the findings generally indicating improved accuracy of the LBTE algorithm over Type B algorithms. The impact of reporting to D w and D m has been discussed for lung [10][11][12], breast [13], bone [14,15] and head and neck [16][17][18]. Recommendations have also been made for reporting dose in the routine clinical setting and in clinical trials [4,19] in the context of both Monte Carlo and LBTE algorithms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics

Hardcastle

Montaseri

Lydon

et al. 2019

Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose: In radiotherapy dose calculation, advanced type-B dose calculation algorithms can calculate dose to medium (D m), as opposed to Type-B algorithms which compute dose to varying densities of water (D w). We investigate the impact of D m on calculated dose and target coverage metrics in head and neck cancer patients. Methods and materials: We reviewed 27 successfully treated (disease free at two-years post-(chemo)radiotherapy) human papillomavirus-associated (HPV) oropharyngeal cancer (ONC) patients treated with IMRT. Doses were calculated with Type-B and Linear Boltzman Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system, with the treated multi-leaf collimator patterns and monitor units. Coverage for primary Gross Tumour Volume (GTVp), high dose Planning Target Volume (PTV) (PTV_High), mandible within PTV_High (Mand ∩ PTV) and PTV_High excluding bone (PTV-bone) were compared between the algorithms. Results: Dose to 95% of PTV_High with LBTE was on average 1.1 Gy/1.7% lower than with Type-B (95%CI 1.5-1.9%, p < 0.0001). This magnitude was inversely linearly correlated with the relative volume of the PTV_High containing bone (pearson r = −0.81). Dose to 98% of the GTVp was 0.9 Gy/1.3% lower with LBTE compared with Type-B (95%CI 1.1-1.5%, p < 0.05). Dose to 98% of Mand ∩ PTV was on average 3.4 Gy/5.0% lower with LBTE than with Type-B (95%CI 4.6-5.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In OPC treated with IMRT, D m results in significant reductions in dose to bone in high dose PTVs. Reported GTVp dose was reduced, but by a lower magnitude. Reduced coverage metrics should be expected for OPC patients treated with IMRT, with dose reductions limited to regions of bone.

show abstract

“…Sarvana et al 15 in their retrospective study determined that there is no significant difference between the dosimetric results obtained from D m and D w mode of calculation. There are also studies where there are opposite conclusions Usmani et al 16 compared the absorbed D m and D w for the spine IMRT plan using a commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning system. A systematic difference between dose volumes indices like D 2 , D 50 , and D 98 of CTV was observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of clinical implications in the use of dose to water versus dose to medium by using NTCP and TCP models for urinary bladder tumours

Bharati

Mandal

Srivastava

et al. 2021

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric and radiobiological differences between dose to water versus dose to medium for patients with carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Materials and Methods: 15 patients with cancer of urinary bladder were selected for the study. VMAT plans were generated for each patient. The dose distributions were calculated in the modes dose to water and to medium with the Monaco treatment planning system. A dosimetric comparative analysis has been made between the two modes of planning in this study. Subsequently, NTCP and TCP were determined for OARs and targets respectively. Results: The mean dose to 2 cc of the rectum, small bowel, left and right femoral heads respectively was higher by 0.8, 1.2, 2.7, and 2.2% for the dose to water calculation. Similarly, the mean dose to D2, D50, and D98 for PTV was higher by 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3% for dose to water calculation. Such small dose differences had little effect on the values of TCP and NTCP. Conclusion: For patients with the urinary bladder there were very small differences between results between calculations carried out in dose to medium and dose to water modes.

show abstract

Comparison of Absorbed Dose to Medium and Absorbed Dose to Water for Spine IMRT Plans Using a Commercial Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics

Evaluation of clinical implications in the use of dose to water versus dose to medium by using NTCP and TCP models for urinary bladder tumours

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About