Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Rostami, Aram | Neto, Aluisio Jose De Castro | Paloor, Satheesh Prasad | Khalid, Abdul Sattar; * | Hammoud, Rabih; *
Affiliations: Radiation Oncology Department, National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Doha, Qatar
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding authors. Abdul Sattar Khalid and Rabih Hammoud, Radiation Oncology Department, National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Doha, Qatar. E-mails: abdul.s.khalid@outlook.com (A.S.K) and Rhammoud2@hamad.qa (R.W.H).
Abstract: Background:Accurate and fast dose calculation is crucial in modern radiation therapy. Four dose calculation algorithms (AAA, AXB, CCC, and MC) are available in Varian Eclipse and RaySearch Laboratories RayStation Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs). Objectives:This study aims to evaluate and compare dosimetric accuracy of the four dose calculation algorithms applying to homogeneous and heterogeneous media, VMAT plans (based on AAPM TG-119 test cases), and the surface and buildup regions. Methods:The four algorithms are assessed in homogeneous (IAEA-TECDOCE 1540) and heterogeneous (IAEA-TECDOC 1583) media. Dosimetric evaluation accuracy for VMAT plans is then analyzed, along with the evaluation of the accuracy of algorithms applying to the surface and buildup regions. Results:Tests conducted in homogeneous media revealed that all algorithms exhibit dose deviations within 5% for various conditions, with pass rates exceeding 95% based on recommended tolerances. Additionally, the tests conducted in heterogeneous media demonstrate high pass rates for all algorithms, with a 100% pass rate observed for 6 MV and mostly 100% pass rate for 15 MV, except for CCC, which achieves a pass rate of 94%. The results of gamma index pass rate (GIPR) for dose calculation algorithms in IMRT fields show that GIPR (3% /3 mm) for all four algorithms in all evaluated tests based on TG119, are greater than 97%. The results of the algorithm testing for the accuracy of superficial dose reveal variations in dose differences, ranging from –11.9% to 7.03% for 15 MV and –9.5% to 3.3% for 6 MV, respectively. It is noteworthy that the AXB and MC algorithms demonstrate relatively lower discrepancies compared to the other algorithms. Conclusions:This study shows that generally, two dose calculation algorithms (AXB and MC) that calculate dose in medium have better accuracy than other two dose calculation algorithms (CCC and AAA) that calculate dose to water.
Keywords: Treatment Planning System (TPS), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Acuros (AXB), collapsed cone convolution (CCC), Monte Carlo (MC).
DOI: 10.3233/XST-230079
Journal: Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1013-1033, 2023
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
sales@iospress.com
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
info@iospress.nl
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office info@iospress.nl
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
china@iospress.cn
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: editorial@iospress.nl