Impact of inhomogeneity corrections on dose coverage in the treatment of lung cancer using stereotactic body radiation therapy

Ding, G; Duggan, Dennis M.; Lü, Bo; Hallahan, Dennis E.; Cmelak, Anthony J.; Malcolm, Arnold W.; Newton, Jared; Deeley, Matthew A.; Coffey, C

doi:10.1118/1.2745923

Cited by 80 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ding et al [14] found that the AAA calculations at 6 MV agreed very well with their measurements, whereas the calculations at high energy overestimated the dose delivered to the lung. They also found that PBC overestimated the dose in the lungs with up to 12Á25%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Validation of Varian's AAA algorithm with focus on lung treatments

Rønde

Hoffmann

2009

Acta Oncologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Validation of Varian's AAA algorithm with focus on lung treatments

Rønde

Hoffmann

2009

Acta Oncologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Bush et al (10) reported that AAA underestimated BEAM/DOSXYZnrc by 8% within lung (

0.24 g {cm}^{- 1}

) using 18 MV

4 \times 4 {cm}^{2}

beam incident on water‐lung‐water phantom. Ding et al (25) reported a 6.0% difference between MC and AAA in lung using a

3 \times 3 {cm}^{2}

, 10 MV single beam. The variations in differences between our findings and the aforementioned studies originate from the different lung density (0.3

g / {cm}^{3}

), phantom structure, and beam configuration used in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Alhakeem

Alshaikh

Rosenfeld

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a 30×30×30 cm3 solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of 20×2.5×2.35 cm3. The third phantom consisted of 30×30×5 cm3 solid water slabs, two 30×30×5 cm3 slabs of lung, and one 30×30×1 cm3 solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of +4.4% to −12.8%. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within ∼2.5%, except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by −3.1% and ∼2% for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes.PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k

show abstract

“…( 33 ) The AAA algorithm makes use of precalculated Monte Carlo dose kernels and provides better dose modeling than the pencil beam algorithm, especially for heterogeneous media. ( 34 ) However, in the open‐field validation, we found that the 15 cm hollow structure in the ArcCHECK system indeed leads to an overestimation in the TPS dose calculation (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system

Lin

Koren

Veltchev

et al. 2013

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10×10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10×10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (<1.2% drop) for the 2%–3% dose and 2 mm–3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3 mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation...

show abstract

Impact of inhomogeneity corrections on dose coverage in the treatment of lung cancer using stereotactic body radiation therapy

Cited by 80 publications

References 55 publications

Validation of Varian's AAA algorithm with focus on lung treatments

Validation of Varian's AAA algorithm with focus on lung treatments

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About