skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators

Abstract

Purpose: Dose calculation accuracy for the out-of-field dose is important for predicting the dose to the organs-at-risk when they are located outside primary beams. The investigations on evaluating the calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPS) on out-of-field dose in existing publications have focused on low energy (6MV) photon. This study evaluates out-of-field dose calculation accuracy of AAA algorithm for 15MV high energy photon beams. Methods: We used the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) codes to evaluate the AAA algorithm in Varian Eclipse TPS (v.11). The incident beams start with validated Varian phase-space sources for a TrueBeam linac equipped with Millennium 120 MLC. Dose comparisons between using AAA and MC for CT based realistic patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques for prostate and lung were performed and uncertainties of organ dose predicted by AAA at out-of-field location were evaluated. Results: The results show that AAA calculations under-estimate doses at the dose level of 1% (or less) of prescribed dose for CT based patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques. In regions where dose is only 1% of prescribed dose, although AAA under-estimates the out-of-field dose by 30% relative to the local dose, it is only about 0.3% of prescribed dose. For example,more » the uncertainties of calculated organ dose to liver or kidney that is located out-of-field is <0.3% of prescribed dose. Conclusion: For 15MV high energy photon beams, very good agreements (<1%) in calculating dose distributions were obtained between AAA and MC. The uncertainty of out-of-field dose calculations predicted by the AAA algorithm for realistic patient VMAT plans is <0.3% of prescribed dose in regions where the dose relative to the prescribed dose is <1%, although the uncertainties can be much larger relative to local doses. For organs-at-risk located at out-of-field, the error of dose predicted by Eclipse using AAA is negligible. This work was conducted in part using the resources of Varian research grant VUMC40590-R.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22548431
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; ERRORS; HEALTH HAZARDS; KIDNEYS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; LIVER; LUNGS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PATIENTS; PHOTON BEAMS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Wang, L, and Ding, G. SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924742.
Wang, L, & Ding, G. SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924742.
Wang, L, and Ding, G. Mon . "SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924742.
@article{osti_22548431,
title = {SU-E-T-381: Evaluation of Calculated Dose Accuracy for Organs-At-Risk Located at Out-Of-Field in a Commercial Treatment Planning System for High Energy Photon Beams Produced From TrueBeam Accelerators},
author = {Wang, L and Ding, G},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Dose calculation accuracy for the out-of-field dose is important for predicting the dose to the organs-at-risk when they are located outside primary beams. The investigations on evaluating the calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPS) on out-of-field dose in existing publications have focused on low energy (6MV) photon. This study evaluates out-of-field dose calculation accuracy of AAA algorithm for 15MV high energy photon beams. Methods: We used the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) codes to evaluate the AAA algorithm in Varian Eclipse TPS (v.11). The incident beams start with validated Varian phase-space sources for a TrueBeam linac equipped with Millennium 120 MLC. Dose comparisons between using AAA and MC for CT based realistic patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques for prostate and lung were performed and uncertainties of organ dose predicted by AAA at out-of-field location were evaluated. Results: The results show that AAA calculations under-estimate doses at the dose level of 1% (or less) of prescribed dose for CT based patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques. In regions where dose is only 1% of prescribed dose, although AAA under-estimates the out-of-field dose by 30% relative to the local dose, it is only about 0.3% of prescribed dose. For example, the uncertainties of calculated organ dose to liver or kidney that is located out-of-field is <0.3% of prescribed dose. Conclusion: For 15MV high energy photon beams, very good agreements (<1%) in calculating dose distributions were obtained between AAA and MC. The uncertainty of out-of-field dose calculations predicted by the AAA algorithm for realistic patient VMAT plans is <0.3% of prescribed dose in regions where the dose relative to the prescribed dose is <1%, although the uncertainties can be much larger relative to local doses. For organs-at-risk located at out-of-field, the error of dose predicted by Eclipse using AAA is negligible. This work was conducted in part using the resources of Varian research grant VUMC40590-R.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924742},
journal = {Medical Physics},
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}
}
  • Purpose: Inaccuracies in out-of-field calculations could lead to underestimation of dose to organs-at-risk. This study evaluates the dose calculation accuracy of a model-based calculation algorithm at points outside the primary treatment field for an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan using experimental measurements. Methods: The treatment planning system investigated is Varian Eclipse V.10 with Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA). The IMRT fields investigated are from real patient treatment plans. The doses from a dynamic (DMLC) IMRT brain plan were calculated and compared with measured doses at locations outside the primary treatment fields. Measurements were performed with a MatriXX system (2-D chambermore » array) placed in solid water. All fields were set vertically incident on the phantom and were 9 cm × 6 cm or smaller. The dose was normalized to the central axis for points up to 15 cm off isocenter. The comparisons were performed at depths of 2, 10, 15, and 20 cm Results: The measurements have shown that AAA calculations underestimate doses at points outside the primary treatment field. The underestimation occurs at 2 cm depth and decreases down to a factor of 2 as depth increases to 20 cm. In low dose (<2% of target dose) regions outside the primary fields the local dose underestimations can be >200% compared to measured doses. Relative to the plan target dose, the measured doses to points outside the field were less than 1% at shallow depths and less than 2% at greater depths. Conclusion: Compared to measurements, the AAA algorithm underestimated the dose at points outside the treatment field with the greatest differences observed at shallow depths. Despite large local dose uncertainties predicted by the treatment planning system, the impact of these uncertainties is expected to be insignificant as doses at these points were less than 1-2% of the prescribed treatment dose.« less
  • Purpose We developed an automated treatment planning system based on a hierarchical goal programming approach. To demonstrate the feasibility of our method, we report the comparison of prostate treatment plans produced from the automated treatment planning system with those produced by a commercial treatment planning system. Methods In our approach, we prioritized the goals of the optimization, and solved one goal at a time. The purpose of prioritization is to ensure that higher priority dose-volume planning goals are not sacrificed to improve lower priority goals. The algorithm has four steps. The first step optimizes dose to the target structures, whilemore » sparing key sensitive organs from radiation. In the second step, the algorithm finds the best beamlet weight to reduce toxicity risks to normal tissue while holding the objective function achieved in the first step as a constraint, with a small amount of allowed slip. Likewise, the third and fourth steps introduce lower priority normal tissue goals and beam smoothing. We compared with prostate treatment plans from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center developed using Eclipse, with a prescription dose of 72 Gy. A combination of liear, quadratic, and gEUD objective functions were used with a modified open source solver code (IPOPT). Results Initial plan results on 3 different cases show that the automated planning system is capable of competing or improving on expert-driven eclipse plans. Compared to the Eclipse planning system, the automated system produced up to 26% less mean dose to rectum and 24% less mean dose to bladder while having the same D95 (after matching) to the target. Conclusion We have demonstrated that Pareto optimal treatment plans can be generated automatically without a trial-and-error process. The solver finds an optimal plan for the given patient, as opposed to database-driven approaches that set parameters based on geometry and population modeling.« less
  • Purpose: Patient dose far from the treatment field is comprised of scatter from within the patient, and treatment head leakage. We quantify the treatment head leakage for TrueBeam linear accelerator for 6X and 6X-FFF beams by comparing measurements to Monte Carlo simulations for a variety of jaw sizes and collimator rotations. This work is conceptually similar to that of Kry et al. (Medical Physics 2006; 33: 4405), who considered a Clinac linear accelerator. Methods: Measurements were made using an EXRADIN A101 ion chamber positioned in the patient plane, at distances up to 100 cm from isocenter. Simulations were done usingmore » VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head, and an in-house (U. Virginia) GEANT4-based code. In-house code modelled an ion chamber with build-up, based on a CT scan of the chamber. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding, and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code. Results: Initial comparisons between measurements and simulation showed an excess of dose in the in-plane direction, away from the gantry, in the simulations. This was traced to an incomplete model of the shielding—specifically, the component holding the primary collimator was smaller in the model than in the TrueBeam. Modifications were made to VirtuaLinac to more closely match the engineering drawings. In the in-plane direction, the lowest out of field dose was away from gantry (negative abscissa values) at around 60 cm from isocenter, for fields smaller than 10×10 cm2. Out of field dose decreased with decreasing jaw size. Flattening-filter free beam produced out-of-field doses as low as 65% of those with flattened beam. Conclusion: Doses determined from simulation and measurement were in close agreement. Funding support from the Jefferson Trust Foundation.« less
  • Purpose: The unintended radiation dose to organs at risk (OAR) can be contributed from imaging guidance procedures as well as from leakage and scatter of therapeutic beams. This study compares the imaging dose with the unintended out-of-field therapeutic dose to patient sensitive organs. Methods: The Monte Carlo EGSnrc user codes, BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc, were used to simulate kV X-ray sources from imaging devices as well as the therapeutic IMRT/VMAT beams and to calculate doses to target and OARs on patient treatment planning CT images. The accuracy of the Monte Carlo simulations was benchmarked against measurements in phantoms. The dose-volume histogrammore » was utilized in analyzing the patient organ doses. Results: The dose resulting from Standard Head kV-CBCT scans to bone and soft tissues ranges from 0.7 to 1.1 cGy and from 0.03 to 0.3 cGy, respectively. The dose resulting from Thorax scans on the chest to bone and soft tissues ranges from 1.1 to 1.8 cGy and from 0.3 to 0.6 cGy, respectively. The dose resulting from Pelvis scans on the abdomen to bone and soft tissues range from 3.2 to 4.2 cGy and from 1.2 to 2.2 cGy, respectively. The out-of-field doses to OAR are sensitive to the distance between the treated target and the OAR. For a typical Head-and-Neck IMRT/VMAT treatment the out-of-field doses to eyes are 1–3% of the target dose, or 2–6 cGy per fraction. Conclusion: The imaging doses to OAR are predictable based on the imaging protocols used when OARs are within the imaged volume and can be estimated and accounted for by using tabulated values. The unintended out-of-field doses are proportional to the target dose, strongly depend on the distance between the treated target and OAR, and are generally higher comparing to the imaging dose. This work was partially supported by Varian research grant VUMC40590.« less
  • Purpose: Advanced stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatments require accurate dose calculation for treatment planning especially for treatment sites involving heterogeneous patient anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation algorithms, Raytracing and Monte Carlo (MC), implemented in the MultiPlan treatment planning system (TPS) in presence of heterogeneities. Methods: First, the LINAC of a CyberKnife radiotherapy facility was modeled with the PENELOPE MC code. A protocol for the measurement of dose distributions with EBT3 films was established and validated thanks to comparison between experimental dose distributions and calculated dose distributions obtained with MultiPlan Raytracing and MCmore » algorithms as well as with the PENELOPE MC model for treatments planned with the homogenous Easycube phantom. Finally, bones and lungs inserts were used to set up a heterogeneous Easycube phantom. Treatment plans with the 10, 7.5 or the 5 mm field sizes were generated in Multiplan TPS with different tumor localizations (in the lung and at the lung/bone/soft tissue interface). Experimental dose distributions were compared to the PENELOPE MC and Multiplan calculations using the gamma index method. Results: Regarding the experiment in the homogenous phantom, 100% of the points passed for the 3%/3mm tolerance criteria. These criteria include the global error of the method (CT-scan resolution, EBT3 dosimetry, LINAC positionning …), and were used afterwards to estimate the accuracy of the MultiPlan algorithms in heterogeneous media. Comparison of the dose distributions obtained in the heterogeneous phantom is in progress. Conclusion: This work has led to the development of numerical and experimental dosimetric tools for small beam dosimetry. Raytracing and MC algorithms implemented in MultiPlan TPS were evaluated in heterogeneous media.« less