Premium
Sci‐Thur PM Therapy‐04: Comparison of treatment planning system and Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions in an extreme water‐lung interface phantom
Author(s) -
Gagne I,
Zavgorodni S
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2244618
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , monte carlo method , beam (structure) , standard deviation , radiation treatment planning , dosimetry , physics , nuclear medicine , convolution (computer science) , superposition principle , algorithm , mathematics , computational physics , statistics , optics , computer science , mathematical analysis , radiation therapy , medicine , artificial intelligence , artificial neural network
The study compares the performance of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), a new superposition‐convolution algorithm recently implemented in Eclipse™ Integrated Treatment Planning System (TPS), to that of the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm for a variety of clinical beam configurations at nominal beam energies of 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively in an extreme water‐lung interface phantom using Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions as benchmarks. Dose profiles at specific depths, 2‐D dose difference (TPS — MC) maps and histograms as well as first order statistics were used to quantify the accuracy of both photon dose calculation algorithms. For each open beam configuration, the AAA algorithm yielded smaller means, standard deviations and confidence limits. On average, the standard deviation of the dose differences was reduced by half with the AAA dose calculation model. Confidence limits for the PBC algorithm were ⩾ 3%, ranging from 3.0% for the 6 MV, 10×10 cm 2 beam to 11.2% for the 18 MV, 4×4 cm 2 beam while for the AAA algorithm they were ⩽ 4% for all beam configurations. The worst agreement of AAA algorithm with MC results was observed for the highest energy and smallest field combination (18 MV, 4×4 cm 2 ). The standard deviation of the differences (2.4%) and confidence limit (4.0%) were however right between the standard deviations and confidence limits provided by the current clinical PBC model of the 6MV 4×4 and 10×10 cm 2 beams.