Dosimetric and Monte Carlo verification of jaws-only IMRT plans calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm for head and neck cancers.
CERR
DOSCTP
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
Jaws-only IMRT (JO-IMRT)
Monte Carlo simulation (MC)
Quality assurance (QA)
Journal
Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
ISSN: 1507-1367
Titre abrégé: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 100885761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
12
04
2018
revised:
24
07
2018
accepted:
10
11
2018
entrez:
12
12
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to verify the Prowess Panther jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) treatment planning (TP) by comparing the TP dose distributions for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer with the ones simulated by Monte Carlo (MC). To date, dose distributions planned using JO-IMRT for H&N patients were found superior to the corresponding three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans. Dosimetry of the JO-IMRT plans were also experimentally verified using an ionization chamber, MapCHECK 2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown. Dose distributions of 15 JO-IMRT plans of nasopharyngeal patients were recalculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The clinical photon beams were simulated using the BEAMnrc. The absorbed dose to patients treated by fixed-field IMRT was computed using the DOSXYZnrc. The simulated dose distributions were then compared with the ones calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithm on the TPS, using the relative dose error comparison and the gamma index using global methods implemented in PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria. There is a good agreement between the MC and TPS dose. The average gamma passing rates were 93.3 ± 3.1%, 92.8 ± 3.2%, 92.4 ± 3.4% based on the 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively. According to the results, it is concluded that the CCC algorithm was adequate for most of the IMRT H&N cases where the target was not immediately adjacent to the critical structures.
Sections du résumé
AIM
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to verify the Prowess Panther jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) treatment planning (TP) by comparing the TP dose distributions for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer with the ones simulated by Monte Carlo (MC).
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To date, dose distributions planned using JO-IMRT for H&N patients were found superior to the corresponding three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans. Dosimetry of the JO-IMRT plans were also experimentally verified using an ionization chamber, MapCHECK 2, and Octavius 4D and good agreements were shown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Dose distributions of 15 JO-IMRT plans of nasopharyngeal patients were recalculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The clinical photon beams were simulated using the BEAMnrc. The absorbed dose to patients treated by fixed-field IMRT was computed using the DOSXYZnrc. The simulated dose distributions were then compared with the ones calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) algorithm on the TPS, using the relative dose error comparison and the gamma index using global methods implemented in PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There is a good agreement between the MC and TPS dose. The average gamma passing rates were 93.3 ± 3.1%, 92.8 ± 3.2%, 92.4 ± 3.4% based on the 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results, it is concluded that the CCC algorithm was adequate for most of the IMRT H&N cases where the target was not immediately adjacent to the critical structures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30532658
doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.11.004
pii: S1507-1367(18)30170-6
pmc: PMC6262183
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
105-114Références
Med Phys. 2003 Feb;30(2):144-57
pubmed: 12607832
Med Dosim. 2001 Summer;26(2):157-68
pubmed: 11444518
Med Phys. 2007 Jan;34(1):307-14
pubmed: 17278516
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):968-77
pubmed: 16458782
Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):979-85
pubmed: 12773007
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Sep;45(9):2483-95
pubmed: 11008950
World J Radiol. 2016 Mar 28;8(3):255-67
pubmed: 27027225
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):58-68
pubmed: 12694824
Med Phys. 1995 May;22(5):503-24
pubmed: 7643786
Phys Med. 2017 Jun;38:148-152
pubmed: 28571708
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Jul 21;50(14):3375-92
pubmed: 16177516
Med Phys. 1999 Oct;26(10):2133-43
pubmed: 10535630
Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3666-79
pubmed: 17089832
J Cancer Res Ther. 2018 Jan-Mar;14(2):351-356
pubmed: 29516918