Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T09:27:20.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system for adjacent radiation fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2023

Ali Rasouli ,
Mahmud Naraqi Arani ,
Akbar Aliasgharzadeh  and
Bagher Farhood Open the ORCID record for Bagher Farhood [Opens in a new window]
Ali Rasouli
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
Mahmud Naraqi Arani
Affiliation:
The Advocate Center for Clinical Research, Ayatollah Yasrebi Hospital, Kashan, Iran
Akbar Aliasgharzadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
Bagher Farhood*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Bagher Farhood, Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. E-mails: farhood-b@kaums.ac.ir; bffarhood@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Adjacent radiation fields are applied in some radiotherapeutic cases. When using these radiation fields, considerable dose errors across the junction of radiation fields are possible. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of the dose calculated by treatment planning system (TPS) when using the adjacent radiation fields. The present study aimed to quantify the dose calculation accuracy of ISOgray TPS for the photon-photon adjacent fields.

Materials and methods:

To assess the accuracy of dose calculations, the dose profiles were first measured by a Semiflex ionization chamber at 1, 1·5, 5 and 10 cm depths for different field sizes (6 × 6, 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm2), source to surface distances (SSDs) (90, 100 and 110 cm) and beam angles (0º, 15º, 30º and 45º). In the second step, the data at corresponding depths were extracted from the ISOgray TPS. Finally, the dosimetric performance of TPS was evaluated using a gamma index analysis.

Results:

The overall dose calculation accuracy of ISOgray TPS was within the acceptable range for the build-up region (with acceptance criteria of dose difference (DD) = 15% and distance to agreement (DTA) = 3 mm) and the depths after the build-up region (with acceptance criteria of DD = 5% and DTA = 3 mm). Moreover, the overall accuracy of dose calculations was not affected by the field size and the SSD. It was also shown that the accuracy of dose calculations was similar for the adjacent radiation fields with beam angles of 0º, 15 º and 30 º, while a considerable decrease in the pass rate values is obtained for the adjacent radiation field with 45 º beam angle. A more detailed analysis of the findings revealed that the accuracy of dose calculations in the match line regions of the adjacent radiation fields for 1 cm beam profiles was within the acceptable range; however, it declined for other depths.

Conclusions:

The findings showed that the overall dose calculation accuracy of ISOgray TPS was acceptable for evaluated adjacent radiation fields. However, the accuracy of dose calculations in the match line regions of the adjacent radiation fields for the depth after build-up was not within the acceptable range.

Keywords

adjacent radiation fielddose calculation accuracyISOgrayradiotherapytreatment planning system
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e93
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Bray, F, Laversanne, M, Weiderpass, E, Soerjomataram, I The ever-increasing importance of cancer as a leading cause of premature death worldwide. Cancer 2021; 127: 3029–3030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortezaee, K, Narmani, A, Salehi, M et al. Synergic effects of nanoparticles-mediated hyperthermia in radiotherapy/chemotherapy of cancer. Life Sci 2021; 269: 119020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sung, H, Ferlay, J, Siegel, RL et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, KD, Nogueira, L, Mariotto, AB et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clinic 2019; 69: 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheikholeslami, S, Khodaverdian, S, Dorri-Giv, M et al. The radioprotective effects of alpha-lipoic acid on radiotherapy-induced toxicities: a systematic review. Int Immunopharmacol 2021; 96: 107741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheikholeslami, S, Aryafar, T, Abedi-Firouzjah, R et al. The role of melatonin on radiation-induced pneumonitis and lung fibrosis: a systematic review. Life Sci 2021; 281: 119721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheikholeslami, S, Khodaverdian, S, Hashemzaei, F, Ghobadi, P, Ghorbani, M, Farhood, B Evaluation of bone dose arising from skin cancer brachytherapy: a comparison between (192)Ir and (60)Co sources through Monte Carlo simulations. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2021; 205: 106089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaney, G, Jacob, S, Featherstone, C and Barton, M The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines. CA Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc 2005; 104: 1129–1137.Google ScholarPubMed
Begg, AC, Stewart, FA, Vens, C Strategies to improve radiotherapy with targeted drugs. Nat Rev Cancer 2011; 11: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortezaee, K, Parwaie, W, Motevaseli, E et al. Targets for improving tumor response to radiotherapy. Int Immunopharmacol 2019; 76: 105847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glimelius, B, Bergh, J, Brandt, L et al. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in some major tumour types--summary and conclusions. Acta Oncol (Stockholm, Sweden) 2001; 40: 135–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyk, J, Barnett, R, Cygler, J, Shragge, P Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy 1993; 26: 261–273.Google ScholarPubMed
Gershkevitsh, E, Schmidt, R, Velez, G et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: results of IAEA pilot study. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89: 338–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasani, M, Farhood, B, Ghorbani, M et al. Effect of computed tomography number-relative electron density conversion curve on the calculation of radiotherapy dose and evaluation of Monaco radiotherapy treatment planning system. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2019; 42: 489–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toossi, MTB, Farhood, B, Soleymanifard, S Evaluation of dose calculations accuracy of a commercial treatment planning system for the head and neck region in radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2017; 22: 420–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraass, B, Doppke, K, Hunt, M et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998; 25: 1773–1829.Google Scholar
Mijnheer, B, Olszewska, A, Fiorino, C et al. Quality assurance of treatment planning systems: practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams. Estro Brussels 2004.Google Scholar
Vatnitsky, S Specification and acceptance testing of radiotherapy treatment planning systems. IAEA 2007.Google Scholar
Andreo, P, Cramb, J, Fraass, B, Ionescu-Farca, F, Izewska, J and Levin, V Technical report series No. 430: commissioning and quality assurance of computerised planning system for radiation treatment of cancer. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency 2004.Google Scholar
TecDoc I 1583: commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency 2008.Google Scholar
Farhood, B, Ghorbani, M Dose calculation accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning systems in out-of-field regions. J Biomed Phy Eng 2019; 9: 133.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahmoudi, G, Farhood, B, Shokrani, P, Atarod, M Evaluation of the photon dose calculation accuracy in radiation therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; 14: 1029–1035.Google ScholarPubMed
Toossi, MTB, Soleymanifard, S, Farhood, B, Farkhari, A, Knaup, C Evaluation of electron dose calculations accuracy of a treatment planning system in radiotherapy of breast cancer with photon-electron technique. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; 14: S1110–S1116.Google ScholarPubMed
Bahreyni Toossi, M, Soleymanifard, S, Farhood, B, Mohebbi, S, Davenport, D Assessment of accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by TiGRT treatment planning system in radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; 14: 634–639.Google ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Toossi, MTB, Ghorbani, M, Salari, E, Knaup, C Assessment the accuracy of dose calculation in build-up region for two radiotherapy treatment planning systems. J Cancer Res Ther 2017; 13: 968.Google ScholarPubMed
Mohammadi, K, Hassani, M, Ghorbani, M, Farhood, B, Knaup, C Evaluation of the accuracy of various dose calculation algorithms of a commercial treatment planning system in the presence of hip prosthesis and comparison with Monte Carlo. J Cancer Res Ther 2017; 13: 501.Google ScholarPubMed
Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Farhood, B, Soleymanifard, S Evaluation of dose calculations accuracy of a commercial treatment planning system for the head and neck region in radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2017; 22: 420–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Soleymanifard, S Assessment of dose calculation accuracy of TiGRT treatment planning system for physical wedged fields in radiotherapy. Iran J Med Phy 2016; 13: 146–153.Google Scholar
Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Momeni, S, Soleymanifard, S, Gholamhosseinian, H Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of Isogray treatment planning system in craniospinal radiotherapy. Iranian J Med Phy 2018; 15: 231–236.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, FF, Bakhshandeh, M, Ghorbani, M, Mofid, B Assessing the out-of-field dose calculation accuracy by eclipse treatment planning system in sliding window IMRT of prostate cancer patients. Comput Biol Med 2020; 127: 104052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncion, A, Wilson, M, Ma, R et al. Evaluation of dose accuracy in the near-surface region for whole breast irradiation techniques in a multi-institutional consortium. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022 ;12: e317–e328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, RM, Scarboro, SB, Kry, S, Yaldo, DZ Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 6999.Google ScholarPubMed
Khan, FM, Gibbons, JP Khan’s the physics of radiation therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.Google Scholar
Williamson, TJ A technique for matching orthogonal megavoltage fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy 1979; 5: 111–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, T, Schumacherd, D, Berry, H A technique for cranial-spinal irradiation. Brit J Radiol 1976; 49: 887–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bukovitz, AG, Deutsch, M, Slayton, R Orthogonal fields: variations in dose vs. gap size for treatment of the central nervous system. Radiology 1978; 126: 795–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillin, MT, Kline, RW Field separation between lateral and anterior fields on a 6 MV linear accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy 1980; 6: 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, BL, Khan, FM, Sharma, SC, Lee, CK, Kim, TH Border separation for adjacent orthogonal fields. Med Dosim 1991; 16: 79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murugan, A, Valas, XS, Thayalan, K, Ramasubramanian, V Dosimetric evaluation of a three-dimensional treatment planning system. J Med Phy 2011; 36: 15–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Jamema, SV, Upreti, RR, Sharma, S, Deshpande, DD Commissioning and comprehensive quality assurance of commercial 3D treatment planning system using IAEA Technical Report Series-430. Australas Phy Eng Sci Med 2008; 31: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedford, JL, Childs, PJ, Nordmark Hansen, V, Mosleh-Shirazi, MA, Verhaegen, F, Warrington, AP Commissioning and quality assurance of the Pinnacle(3) radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 163–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liura, S, Pawiro, S Comparison of gamma index passing rate in several treatment planning system algorithms. At Indones 2020; 46: 77–84.Google Scholar
Van Esch, A, Clermont, C, Devillers, M, Iori, M, Huyskens, DP On-line quality assurance of rotational radiotherapy treatment delivery by means of a 2D ion chamber array and the Octavius phantom. Med Phys 2007; 34: 3825–3837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, DA, Harms, WB, Mutic, S, Purdy, JA A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phy 1998; 25: 656–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stasi, M, Bresciani, S, Miranti, A, Maggio, A, Sapino, V, Gabriele, P Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7626–7634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacala, AM Linac photon beam fine-tuning in PRIMO using the gamma-index analysis toolkit. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ju, T, Simpson, T, Deasy, JO, Low, DA Geometric interpretation of the dose distribution comparison technique: interpolation-free calculation. Med Phy 2008; 35: 879–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H, Dong, L, Zhang, L, Yang, JN, Gillin, MT, Zhu, XR Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance method a. Med Phy 2011; 38: 6730–6741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, DA, Dempsey, JF Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phy 2003; 30: 2455–2464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakai, A, Alber, M, Nüsslin, F A revision of the γ-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions. Phy Med Biol 2003; 48: 3543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, DA Gamma dose distribution evaluation tool. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing 2010: 012071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hariri Tabrizi, S, Heidarloo, N, Tavallaie, M Introduction of a reliable software for the calculation of the gamma index. Iran J Med Phy 2020; 17: 133–136.Google Scholar
Dawod, T, Mosad, M, Rostom, Y, Abouzeid, M IMRT commissioning and verification measurements on Siemens (ARTISTE) linear accelerator. Res Oncol 2012; 8: 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussein, M, Clark, C, Nisbet, A Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy–towards good practice. Phy Med 2017; 36: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venselaar, J, Welleweerd, H, Mijnheer, B Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. Radiother Oncol 2001; 60: 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agency I A E Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. Technical Report Series No 430, IAEA, Vienna 2004.Google Scholar
Fogliata, A, Nicolini, G, Clivio, A, Vanetti, E, Mancosu, P, Cozzi, L Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water. Phy Med Biol 2011; 56: 1879–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Ghorbani, M, Salari, E, Knaup, C Assessment the accuracy of dose calculation in build-up region for two radiotherapy treatment planning systems. J Cancer Res Ther 2017; 13: 968–973.Google ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Soleymanifard, S, Mortezazadeh, T Assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation in the build-up region of the tangential field of the breast for a radiotherapy treatment planning system. Contemp Oncol (Poznan, Poland) 2017; 21: 232–239.Google ScholarPubMed
Mönnich, D, Winter, J, Nachbar, M et al. Quality assurance of IMRT treatment plans for a 1.5 T MR-linac using a 2D ionization chamber array and a static solid phantom. Phys Med Biology 2020; 65: 16nt01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, LRJ, Donzelli, M, Pellicioli, P et al. A commercial treatment planning system with a hybrid dose calculation algorithm for synchrotron radiotherapy trials. Phy Med Biol 2021; 66: 055016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldib, A, Zhang, D, Abdelgawad, MH, Hossain, M, Ma, CC Dosimetric evaluation of the capabilities of two clinical treatment planning systems for prostate cancer. Radiat Phy Chem 2021; 188: 109642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmoudi, L, Mostafanezhad, K, Zeinali, A Performance evaluation of a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system in out-of-field dose estimation during dynamic IMRT with different dose rates. Inform Med Unlocked 2022; 29: 100912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rasouli et al. supplementary material

Rasouli et al. supplementary material

Download Rasouli et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.2 MB