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

Title: SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we developed a system to calculate three dimensional (3D) dose that reflects dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration for head and neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) without additional treatment planning system calculation on real time. Methods: An original system called clarkson dose calculation based dosimetric error calculation to calculate dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration was developed by MATLAB (Math Works, Natick, MA). Our program, first, calculates point doses at isocenter for baseline and modified VMAT plan, which generated by inducing MLC errors that enlarged aperture size of 1.0 mm with clarkson dose calculation. Second, error incuced 3D dose was generated with transforming TPS baseline 3D dose using calculated point doses. Results: Mean computing time was less than 5 seconds. For seven head and neck and prostate plans, between our method and TPS calculated error incuced 3D dose, the 3D gamma passing rates (0.5%/2 mm, global) are 97.6±0.6% and 98.0±0.4%. The dose percentage change with dose volume histogram parameter of mean dose on target volume were 0.1±0.5% and 0.4±0.3%, and with generalized equivalent uniform dose on target volume were −0.2±0.5% and 0.2±0.3%. Conclusion: The erroneous 3D dose calculated by our method is usefulmore » to check dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration before pre treatment patient QA dosimetry checks.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3]; ;  [1]
  1. Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu City, Fukushima (Japan)
  2. (Japan)
  3. Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendal, Miyagi (Japan)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648979
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; DOSIMETRY; ERRORS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS

Citation Formats

Katsuta, Y, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendal, Miyagi, Kadoya, N, Jingu, K, Shimizu, E, and Majima, K. SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956566.
Katsuta, Y, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendal, Miyagi, Kadoya, N, Jingu, K, Shimizu, E, & Majima, K. SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956566.
Katsuta, Y, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendal, Miyagi, Kadoya, N, Jingu, K, Shimizu, E, and Majima, K. 2016. "SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956566.
@article{osti_22648979,
title = {SU-F-T-381: Fast Calculation of Three-Dimensional Dose Considering MLC Leaf Positional Errors for VMAT Plans},
author = {Katsuta, Y and Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendal, Miyagi and Kadoya, N and Jingu, K and Shimizu, E and Majima, K},
abstractNote = {Purpose: In this study, we developed a system to calculate three dimensional (3D) dose that reflects dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration for head and neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) without additional treatment planning system calculation on real time. Methods: An original system called clarkson dose calculation based dosimetric error calculation to calculate dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration was developed by MATLAB (Math Works, Natick, MA). Our program, first, calculates point doses at isocenter for baseline and modified VMAT plan, which generated by inducing MLC errors that enlarged aperture size of 1.0 mm with clarkson dose calculation. Second, error incuced 3D dose was generated with transforming TPS baseline 3D dose using calculated point doses. Results: Mean computing time was less than 5 seconds. For seven head and neck and prostate plans, between our method and TPS calculated error incuced 3D dose, the 3D gamma passing rates (0.5%/2 mm, global) are 97.6±0.6% and 98.0±0.4%. The dose percentage change with dose volume histogram parameter of mean dose on target volume were 0.1±0.5% and 0.4±0.3%, and with generalized equivalent uniform dose on target volume were −0.2±0.5% and 0.2±0.3%. Conclusion: The erroneous 3D dose calculated by our method is useful to check dosimetric error caused by leaf miscalibration before pre treatment patient QA dosimetry checks.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956566},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of systematic MLC positional errors (PEs) on the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Methods: Five patients with head-and-neck cancer (HN) and five patients with prostate cancer were randomly chosen for this study. The clinically approved VMAT plans were designed with 2–4 coplanar arc beams with none-zero collimator angles in the Pinnacle planning system. The systematic MLC PEs of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm on both MLC banks were introduced into the original VMAT plans using an in-house program, and recalculated with the same planned Monitor Units in the Pinnacle system. For eachmore » patient, the original VMAT plans and plans with MLC PEs were evaluated according to the dose-volume histogram information and Gamma index analysis. Results: For one primary target, the ratio of V100 in the plans with 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm MLC PEs to those in the clinical plans was 98.8 ± 2.2%, 97.9 ± 2.1%, 90.1 ± 9.0% for HN cases and 99.5 ± 3.2%, 98.9 ± 1.0%, 97.0 ± 2.5% for prostate cases. For all OARs, the relative difference of Dmean in all plans was less than 1.5%. With 2mm/2% criteria for Gamma analysis, the passing rates were 99.0 ± 1.5% for HN cases and 99.7 ± 0.3% for prostate cases between the planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 1.0 mm MLC errors. The corresponding Gamma passing rates dropped to 88.9 ± 5.3% for HN cases and 83.4 ± 3.2% for prostate cases when comparing planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 2.0 mm MLC errors. Conclusion: For VMAT plans, systematic MLC PEs up to 1.0 mm did not affect the plan quality in term of target coverage, OAR sparing, and Gamma analysis with 2mm/2% criteria.« less
  • Purpose: There is a growing interest in the radiation oncology community to use the biological effective dose (BED) rather than the physical dose (PD) in treatment plan evaluation and optimization due to its stronger correlation with radiobiological effects. Radiotherapy patients may receive treatments involving a single only phase or multiple phases (e.g., primary and boost). Since most treatment planning systems cannot calculate the analytical BED distribution in multiphase treatments, an approximate multiphase BED expression, which is based on the total physical dose distribution, has been used. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the mathematical properties of the approximatemore » BED formulation, relative to the true BED. Methods: The mathematical properties of the approximate multiphase BED equation are analyzed and evaluated. In order to better understand the accuracy of the approximate multiphase BED equation, the true multiphase BED equation was derived and the mathematical differences between the true and approximate multiphase BED equations were determined. The magnitude of its inaccuracies under common clinical circumstances was also studied. All calculations were performed on a voxel-by-voxel basis using the three-dimensional dose matrices. Results: Results showed that the approximate multiphase BED equation is accurate only when the dose-per-fractions (DPFs) in both the first and second phases are equal, which occur when the dose distribution does not significantly change between the phases. In the case of heterogeneous dose distributions, which significantly vary between the phases, there are fewer occurrences of equal DPFs and hence the inaccuracy of the approximate multiphase BED is greater. These characteristics are usually seen in the dose distributions being delivered to organs at risk rather than to targets. Conclusions: The finding of this study indicates that the true multiphase BED equation should be implemented in the treatment planning systems due to the inconsistent accuracy of the approximate multiphase BED equation in most of the clinical situations.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the impact of dose calculation algorithm on the dose distribution of biologically optimized Volumatric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans for Esophgeal cancer. Methods: Eighteen retrospectively treated patients with carcinoma esophagus were studied. VMAT plans were optimized using biological objectives in Monaco (5.0) TPS for 6MV photon beam (Elekta Infinity). These plans were calculated for final dose using Monte Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) & Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithms from Monaco and Oncentra Masterplan TPS. A dose grid of 2mm was used for all algorithms and 1% per plan uncertainty maintained for MC calculation. MC basedmore » calculations were considered as the reference for CCC & PBC. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices (D95, D98, D50 etc) of Target (PTV) and critical structures were compared to study the impact of all three algorithms. Results: Beam models were consistent with measured data. The mean difference observed in reference with MC calculation for D98, D95, D50 & D2 of PTV were 0.37%, −0.21%, 1.51% & 1.18% respectively for CCC and 3.28%, 2.75%, 3.61% & 3.08% for PBC. Heart D25 mean difference was 4.94% & 11.21% for CCC and PBC respectively. Lung Dmean mean difference was 1.5% (CCC) and 4.1% (PBC). Spinal cord D2 mean difference was 2.35% (CCC) and 3.98% (PBC). Similar differences were observed for liver and kidneys. The overall mean difference found for target and critical structures was 0.71±1.52%, 2.71±3.10% for CCC and 3.18±1.55%, 6.61±5.1% for PBC respectively. Conclusion: We observed a significant overestimate of dose distribution by CCC and PBC as compared to MC. The dose prediction of CCC is closer (<3%) to MC than that of PBC. This can be attributed to poor performance of CCC and PBC in inhomogeneous regions around esophagus. CCC can be considered as an alternate in the absence of MC algorithm.« less
  • Purpose: In commercial secondary dose calculation system, an average effective depth is used to calculate the Monitor Units for an arc beam from the volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) plans. Typically, an arithmetic mean of the effective depths (AMED) of a VMAT arc beam is used, which may result in large MU discrepancy from that of the primary treatment planning system. This study is to demonstrate the use of a dose weighted mean effective depth (DWED) can improve accuracy of MU calculation for the secondary MU verification. Methods: In-house scripts were written in the primary treatment planning system (TPS) to firstmore » convert a VMAT arc beam to a series of static step & shoot beams (every 4 degree). The computed dose and effective depth of each static beam were then used to obtain the dose weighted mean effective depth (DWED) for the VMAT beam. The DWED was used for the secondary MU calculation for VMAT plans. Six lung SBRT VMAT plans, eight head and neck VMAT plans and ten prostate VMAT plans that had > 5% MU deviations (failed MU verification) using the AMED method were recalculated with the DWED. For comparison, same number VMAT plans that had < 5% MU deviations (passed MU verification) using AMED method were also reevaluated with the dose weighted mean effective depth method. Results: For MU verification passed plans, the mean and standard deviation of MU differences between the TPS and the secondary calculation program were 2.2%±1.5% for the AMED and 2.1%±1.7% for the DMED method. For the failed plans, the mean and standard deviation of MU differences of TPS to the secondary calculation program were 9.9%±4.7% and 4.7%±2.6, respectively. Conclusion: The dose weighted mean effective depth improved MU calculation accuracy which can be used for the pre-treatment MU verification of VMAT plans.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the significance of using pinpoint ionization chambers (IC) and RadCalc (RC) in determining the quality of lung SBRT VMAT plans with low dose deviation pass percentage (DDPP) as reported by ScandiDos Delta4 (D4). To quantify the relationship between DDPP and point dose deviations determined by IC (ICDD), RadCalc (RCDD), and median dose deviation reported by D4 (D4DD). Methods: Point dose deviations and D4 DDPP were compiled for 45 SBRT VMAT plans. Eighteen patients were treated on Varian Truebeam linear accelerators (linacs); the remaining 27 were treated on Elekta Synergy linacs with Agility collimators. A one-way analysis ofmore » variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD. Tukey’s test was used to determine which pair of means was statistically different from each other. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine if D4DD, ICDD, or RCDD are statistically significant predictors of DDPP. Results: Median DDPP, D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD were 80.5% (47.6%–99.2%), −0.3% (−2.0%–1.6%), 0.2% (−7.5%–6.3%), and 2.9% (−4.0%–19.7%), respectively. The ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD for a 95% confidence interval (p < 0.001). Tukey’s test revealed a statistically significant difference between two pairs of groups, RCDD-D4DD and RCDD-ICDD (p < 0.001), but no difference between ICDD-D4DD (p = 0.485). Multiple regression analysis revealed that ICDD (p = 0.04) and D4DD (p = 0.03) are statistically significant predictors of DDPP with an adjusted r{sup 2} of 0.115. Conclusion: This study shows ICDD predicts trends in D4 DDPP; however this trend is highly variable as shown by our low r{sup 2}. This work suggests that ICDD can be used as a method to verify DDPP in delivery of lung SBRT VMAT plans. RCDD may not validate low DDPP discovered in D4 QA for small field SBRT treatments.« less