Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:43:07.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of an in-house developed monitor unit double-check program for 3D conformal radiation therapy and treatment planning system verification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2019

Noureddine Slassi ,
Hmad Ouabi  and
Naïma El Khayati
Noureddine Slassi*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Ibn battouta OB 1014, Rabat, Morocco
Hmad Ouabi
Affiliation:
AL AZHAR Oncology Center, District Hassan OB 10020, Rabat, Morocco
Naïma El Khayati
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Ibn battouta OB 1014, Rabat, Morocco
*
Author for correspondence: Noureddine Slassi, Faculty of Science, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Ibn battouta OB 1014, Rabat, Morocco. E-mail: nouredineslassi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The treatment planning system (TPS) plays a key role in radiotherapy treatments; it is responsible for the accurate determination of the monitor unit (MU) needed to be delivered to treat a patient with cancer. The main goal of radiotherapy is to sterilise the tumour; however, any imprecise dose delivered could lead to deadly consequences. The TPS has a quality assurance tool, an independent program to double check the MU, evaluate patient plan correctness and search for any potential error.

Materials and methods

In this work, a comparison was carried out between a MU calculated by TPS and an independent in-house-developed monitor unit calculation program (MUCP). The program, written in Cplusplus (C++ Object-Oriented), requires a database of several measured quantities and uses a recently developed physically based method for field equivalence calculation. The ROOT CERN data analysis library has been used to establish fit functions, to extend MUCP use to a variety of photon beams. This study presents a new approach to checking MU correctness calculated by the TPS for a water-like tissue equivalent medium, using our MUCP, as the majority of previous studies on the MU independent checks were based on the Clarkson method. To evaluate each irradiated region, four calculation points corresponding to relative depths under the water phantom were tested for several symmetric, asymmetric, irregular symmetric and asymmetric field cases. A comparison of MU for each radiation fields from readings of the TPS and the MUCP was undertaken.

Results

A satisfactory agreement has been obtained and within the required standards (3%). Additional experimental measurements of dose deposited in a water phantom showed a deviation of <1·6%.

Findings

The MUCP is a useful tool for basic and complex MU verification for 3D conformal radiation therapy plans.

Keywords

independent monitor unit calculationasymmetric fieldsmulti-leaf collimator-shaped fieldsquality assurancetreatment planning
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 251 - 261
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Slassi N, Ouabi H, El Khayati N. (2019) Comparison of an in-house developed monitor unit double-check program for 3D conformal radiation therapy and treatment planning system verification. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 251–261. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000742

References

1. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1994) ICRU Report no. 50: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
2. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1999) ICRU Report no. 62: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy e Supplement to ICRU Report 50. Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
3. Rustgi, S N. Medical physics aspects in accreditation of radiation oncology practice. J Med Physics / 466 Assoc Med Physicists India 2016; 41 (3): 157–161.Google Scholar
4. Malicki, J, Bly, R, Bulot, M et al. Patient safety in external beam radiotherapy guidelines on risk assessment and analysis of adverse error-events and near misses: introducing the ACCIRAD project. Radiother Oncol 2014; 112: 194–198.10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.011Google Scholar
5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2001 Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy (IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 398). Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
6. Kutcher, G J, Coia, L, Gillin, M et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994; 21 (4): 581–618.10.1118/1.597316Google Scholar
7. Van Dyk, J, Barnett, R B, Cygler, J E, Schragge, P C. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 26: 261–273.Google Scholar
8. Ayyangar, K M, Saw, C B, Gearheart, D, Shen, B, Thompson, R. Independent calculations to validate monitor units from ADAC treatment planning system. Med Dosim 2003; 28 (2): 79–83.10.1016/S0958-3947(02)00237-6Google Scholar
9. Chan, J, Russell, D, Peters, V G, Farrell, T J. Comparison of monitor unit calculations performed with a 3D computerized planning system and independent “hand” calculations: results of three years clinical experience. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2002; 3 (4): 293–301.Google Scholar
10. Starkschall, G, Steadham, R E, Wells, N H, O’Neill, L, Miller, L A, Rosen, I I. On the need for monitor unit calculations as part of a beam commissioning methodology for a radiation treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2000; 1: 86–94.10.1120/1.308251Google Scholar
11. Leszczynski, K W, Dunscombe, P B. Independent corroboration of monitor unit calculations performed by 3D computerized planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2000; 1: 120–125.10.1120/1.1314820Google Scholar
12. Sellakumar, P, Arun, C, Sanjay, S S, Ramesh, S B. Comparison of monitor units calculated by radiotherapy treatment planning system and an independent monitor unit verification software. Phys Med 2011; 27: 21–29.10.1016/j.ejmp.2010.01.006Google Scholar
13. Chen, Z, Xing, L, Nath, R. Independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated radiotherapy using the MIMiC multileaf collimator. Med Phys 2002; 29: 2041–2051.10.1118/1.1500397Google Scholar
14. Ramos, L I, Monge, R M, Aristu, J J, Moreno, L A. An independent algorithm to check the monitor units calculation in radiosurgery. Med Phys 2008; 35 (1): 48–51.10.1118/1.2815361Google Scholar
15. Iftimia, I, Cirino, E T, Xiong, L, Mower, H W. Quality assurance methodology for Varian RapidArc treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11: 130–143.10.1120/jacmp.v11i4.3164Google Scholar
16. Tuazon, B, Narayanasamy, G, Papanikolaou, N, Kirby, N, Mavroidis, P, Stathakis, S. Evaluation and comparison of second-check monitor unit calculation software with Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. Phys Med 2018; 45: 186–191 ISSN .10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.004Google Scholar
17. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group No.21. A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high energies photons and electron beams. Med Phys 1983; 10: 741–771.10.1118/1.595446Google Scholar
18. Nordic Association of Clinical Physics. Procedures in external radiation therapy dosimetry with electron and photon beams with maximum energies between 1 and 50 MeV. Acta Radiol 1980; 19: 55–79.Google Scholar
19. Day, M J. A note on the calculation of dose in X-ray fields. Br J Radiol 1950; 519: 368–369 0007-1285-23.10.1259/0007-1285-23-270-368Google Scholar
20. Kwa, W, Kornelson, R O, Harrison, R W, El-Khatib, E. Dosimetry for asymmetric X-ray field. Med Phys 1994; 21: 1599–1604.Google Scholar
21. Araki, F, Ikeda, R, Moribe, N et al. Dose calculation for asymmetric photon fields with independent jaws and mul-tileaf collimators. Med Phys 2000; 27: 340–345.10.1118/1.598836Google Scholar
22. Birgani, M J T, Chegeni, N, Zabihzadeh, M, Hamzian, N. An analytical method to calculate equivalent fields to irregular symmetric and asymmetric photon fields. Med Dosim 2014; 39: 54–59.10.1016/j.meddos.2013.09.007Google Scholar
23. Dutreix, A, Bjarngard, B E, Bridier, A, Mijnheer, B J, Shaw, J E, Svensson, H. Monitor Unit Calculation for High Energy Photon Beams. ESTRO booklet no 3; 1997.Google Scholar
24. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Therapy Physics Committee, Task Group No.71. Monitor unit calculations for external photon and electron beams. Med Phys 2014; 41: 031501-1.Google Scholar
25. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Therapy Physics Committee, Task Group No.114. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy. Med Phys 2014; 41: 031501-1.Google Scholar
26. ROOT Data analysis Framework, User’s Guide, https://root.cern.ch/root/htmldoc/guides/users-guide/ROOTUsersGuide.html#preface, Accessed on 26 July 2017.Google Scholar
27. Xio Release V5·00·01.1 (Linux), Monaco Servers – 5.00.00, Copyright IMPAC Medical System, Inc. 2014. Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
28. IBA Dosimetry GmbH, Technical Note 997-103_TN011_140410 01, Doc-ID: P-11-001-510-001 02.Google Scholar
29. Jiang, C, Xie, K, Yu, C, Yu, M, Wang, H, He, Y, Teo, K L. A sequential computational approach to optimal control problems for differential-algebraic systems based on efficient implicit Runge–Kutta integration. Appl Math Model 2018; 58: 313–330.10.1016/j.apm.2017.05.015Google Scholar
30. Martin, K, Hoffman, B. An open source approach to developing software in a small organization. In: IEEE Software, Volume 24, Number 1. IEEE: Maryland, USA, January 2007.Google Scholar
31. Machine Ref: 3290 Elekta, Al Azhar Oncology Center Rabat, Morocco.Google Scholar
32. Sterling, T D, Perry, H, Katx, L. Automation of radiation treatment planning IV. Derivation of a mathematical expression for the percent depth dose surface of 60cobalt beams and visualization of multiple fields dose distributions. Br J Radiol 1964; 37: 544–550.10.1259/0007-1285-37-439-544Google Scholar
33. Takahashi, R, Kamima, T, Itano, M et al. A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy. Phys Med: Eur J Med Phys 2018; 49: 19–27 ISSN .10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.394Google Scholar