SU-E-J-80: A Comparative Analysis of MIM and Pinnacle Software for Adaptive Planning
Abstract
Purpose: IMRT treatment is often administered with image guidance and small PTV margins. Change in body habitus such as weight loss and tumor response during the course of a treatment could be significant, thus warranting re-simulation and re-planning. Adaptive planning is challenging and places significant burden on the staff, as such some commercial vendors are now offering adaptive planning software to stream line the process of re-planning and dose accumulation between different CT data set. The purpose of this abstract is to compare the adaptive planning tools between Pinnacle version 9.8 and MIM 6.4 software. Methods: Head and Neck cases of previously treated patients that experienced anatomical changes during the course of their treatment were chosen for evaluation. The new CT data set from the re-simulation was imported to Pinnacle and MIM software. The dynamic planning tool in pinnacle was used to calculate the old plan with fixed MU setting on the new CT data. In MIM, the old CT was registered to the new data set, followed by a dose transformation to the new CT. The dose distribution to the PTV and critical structures from each software were analyzed and compared. Results: 9% difference was observed between the Globalmore »
- Authors:
-
- University of Mississippi Med. Center, Jackson, MS (United States)
- Publication Date:
- OSTI Identifier:
- 22494099
- Resource Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal Name:
- Medical Physics
- Additional Journal Information:
- Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0094-2405
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; HEAD; HEALTH HAZARDS; IMAGES; NECK; NEOPLASMS; ORGANS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION
Citation Formats
Stanford, J, Duggar, W, Morris, B, and Yang, C. SU-E-J-80: A Comparative Analysis of MIM and Pinnacle Software for Adaptive Planning. United States: N. p., 2015.
Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924167.
Stanford, J, Duggar, W, Morris, B, & Yang, C. SU-E-J-80: A Comparative Analysis of MIM and Pinnacle Software for Adaptive Planning. United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4924167
Stanford, J, Duggar, W, Morris, B, and Yang, C. 2015.
"SU-E-J-80: A Comparative Analysis of MIM and Pinnacle Software for Adaptive Planning". United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4924167.
@article{osti_22494099,
title = {SU-E-J-80: A Comparative Analysis of MIM and Pinnacle Software for Adaptive Planning},
author = {Stanford, J and Duggar, W and Morris, B and Yang, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: IMRT treatment is often administered with image guidance and small PTV margins. Change in body habitus such as weight loss and tumor response during the course of a treatment could be significant, thus warranting re-simulation and re-planning. Adaptive planning is challenging and places significant burden on the staff, as such some commercial vendors are now offering adaptive planning software to stream line the process of re-planning and dose accumulation between different CT data set. The purpose of this abstract is to compare the adaptive planning tools between Pinnacle version 9.8 and MIM 6.4 software. Methods: Head and Neck cases of previously treated patients that experienced anatomical changes during the course of their treatment were chosen for evaluation. The new CT data set from the re-simulation was imported to Pinnacle and MIM software. The dynamic planning tool in pinnacle was used to calculate the old plan with fixed MU setting on the new CT data. In MIM, the old CT was registered to the new data set, followed by a dose transformation to the new CT. The dose distribution to the PTV and critical structures from each software were analyzed and compared. Results: 9% difference was observed between the Global maximum doses reported by both software. Mean doses to organs at risk and PTV’s were within 6 % however pinnacle showed greater difference in PTV coverage change. Conclusion: MIM software adaptive planning corrects for geometrical changes without consideration for the effect of radiological path length on dose distribution; however Pinnacle corrects for both geometric and radiological effect on the dose distribution. Pinnacle gives a better estimate of the dosimetric impact due to anatomical changes.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924167},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22494099},
journal = {Medical Physics},
issn = {0094-2405},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}