» Articles » PMID: 24892349

Evaluation of Six TPS Algorithms in Computing Entrance and Exit Doses

Overview
Date 2014 Jun 4
PMID 24892349
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Entrance and exit doses are commonly measured in in vivo dosimetry for comparison with expected values, usually generated by the treatment planning system (TPS), to verify accuracy of treatment delivery. This report aims to evaluate the accuracy of six TPS algorithms in computing entrance and exit doses for a 6 MV beam. The algorithms tested were: pencil beam convolution (Eclipse PBC), analytical anisotropic algorithm (Eclipse AAA), AcurosXB (Eclipse AXB), FFT convolution (XiO Convolution), multigrid superposition (XiO Superposition), and Monte Carlo photon (Monaco MC). Measurements with ionization chamber (IC) and diode detector in water phantoms were used as a reference. Comparisons were done in terms of central axis point dose, 1D relative profiles, and 2D absolute gamma analysis. Entrance doses computed by all TPS algorithms agreed to within 2% of the measured values. Exit doses computed by XiO Convolution, XiO Superposition, Eclipse AXB, and Monaco MC agreed with the IC measured doses to within 2%-3%. Meanwhile, Eclipse PBC and Eclipse AAA computed exit doses were higher than the IC measured doses by up to 5.3% and 4.8%, respectively. Both algorithms assume that full backscatter exists even at the exit level, leading to an overestimation of exit doses. Despite good agreements at the central axis for Eclipse AXB and Monaco MC, 1D relative comparisons showed profiles mismatched at depths beyond 11.5 cm. Overall, the 2D absolute gamma (3%/3 mm) pass rates were better for Monaco MC, while Eclipse AXB failed mostly at the outer 20% of the field area. The findings of this study serve as a useful baseline for the implementation of entrance and exit in vivo dosimetry in clinical departments utilizing any of these six common TPS algorithms for reference comparison.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for ISOgray Treatment Planning System in Motorized Wedged Treatment Fields.

Raghavi S, Sadoughi H, Ravari M, Behmadi M J Med Signals Sens. 2024; 14:31.

PMID: 39691405 PMC: 11651387. DOI: 10.4103/jmss.jmss_28_24.


Comparison of Air-Gaps Effect in a Small Cavity on Dose Calculation for 6 MV Linac.

Azzi A, Ryangga D, Pawiro S J Biomed Phys Eng. 2021; 11(1):17-28.

PMID: 33564636 PMC: 7859373. DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2004-1096.


A Special Report on 2019 International Planning Competition and a Comprehensive Analysis of Its Results.

Chen J, Dai J, Nobah A, Bai S, Bi N, Lai Y Front Oncol. 2020; 10:571644.

PMID: 33344231 PMC: 7746833. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.571644.


An Empirical Transmitted EPID Dosimetry Method using a Back-Projection Algorithm.

S M H, M H B, M M, S N, S B, H G J Biomed Phys Eng. 2019; 9(5):551-558.

PMID: 31750269 PMC: 6820021. DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1082.


Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Using Monte Carlo Dose Calculation and Elekta Log Files for Prostate Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy.

Katsuta Y, Kadoya N, Fujita Y, Shimizu E, Matsunaga K, Sawada K Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 16(6):1220-1225.

PMID: 29334027 PMC: 5762095. DOI: 10.1177/1533034617745250.


References
1.
Mutic S, Low D . Superficial doses from serial tomotherapy delivery. Med Phys. 2000; 27(1):163-5. DOI: 10.1118/1.598880. View

2.
Chiu-Tsao S, Chan M . Photon beam dosimetry in the superficial buildup region using radiochromic EBT film stack. Med Phys. 2009; 36(6):2074-83. PMC: 8353580. DOI: 10.1118/1.3125134. View

3.
Purdy J . Buildup/surface dose and exit dose measurements for a 6-MV linear accelerator. Med Phys. 1986; 13(2):259-62. DOI: 10.1118/1.595908. View

4.
Qi Z, Deng X, Huang S, Zhang L, He Z, Li X . In vivo verification of superficial dose for head and neck treatments using intensity-modulated techniques. Med Phys. 2009; 36(1):59-70. DOI: 10.1118/1.3030951. View

5.
Garavaglia G, Johansson K, Leunens G, Mijnheer B . The role of in vivo dosimetry. Radiother Oncol. 1993; 29(2):281-2. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(93)90259-b. View