12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.

            In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers.

              The process of radiation therapy is complex and involves many steps. At each step, comprehensive quality assurance procedures are required to ensure the safe and accurate delivery of a prescribed radiation dose. This report deals with a comprehensive commissioning and ongoing quality assurance program specifically for treatment planning computers. Detailed guidelines are provided under the following topics: (a) computer program and system documentation and user training, (b) sources of uncertainties and suggested tolerances, (c) initial system checks, (d) repeated system checks, (e) quality assurance through manual procedures, and in vivo dosimetry, and (f) some additional considerations including administration and manpower requirements. In the context of commercial computerized treatment planning systems, uncertainty estimates and achievable criteria of acceptability are presented for: (a) external photon beams, (b) electron beams, (c) brachytherapy, and (d) treatment machine setting calculations. Although these criteria of acceptability appear large, they approach the limit achievable with most of today's treatment planning systems. However, developers of new or improved dose calculation algorithms should strive for the goal recommended by the International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements of 2% in relative dose accuracy in low dose gradients or 2 mm spatial accuracy in regions with high dose gradients. For brachytherapy, the aim should be 3% accuracy in dose at distances of 0.5 cm or more at any point for any radiation source. Details are provided for initial commissioning tests and follow-up reproducibility tests. The final quality assurance for each patient is to perform an independent manual check of at least one point in the dose distributions, as well as the machine setting calculation. As a check of the overall treatment planning process, in vivo dosimetry should be performed on a select number of patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                satyapal@cancerboard.ab.ca
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                10 May 2007
                Spring 2007
                : 8
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2007.8.issue-2 )
                : 76-92
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Centre University of Calgary Calgary
                [ 2 ] Departments of Oncology University of Calgary Calgary
                [ 3 ] Departments of Radiology University of Calgary Calgary
                [ 4 ] Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada
                [ 5 ] Department of Oncology University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Corresponding author: Satyapal Rathee, Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2 Canada; phone: 780‐432‐8624; fax: 780‐432‐8615; email: satyapal@ 123456cancerboard.ab.ca
                Article
                ACM20076
                10.1120/jacmp.v8i2.2350
                5722411
                17592457
                e9f6bccf-3056-4f0b-8be6-e9ccdb63818c
                © 2007 The Authors.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 July 2006
                : 27 February 2007
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 8, References: 25, Pages: 17, Words: 7487
                Funding
                Funded by: Varian Medical Systems
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20076
                Spring 2007
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                aaa,tg‐53 criteria,dosimetric evaluation,photon‐beam dose calculation

                Comments

                Comment on this article