Premium
SU‐E‐T‐137: Dosimetric Validation for Pinnacle, Acuros, AAA, and Brainlab Algorithms with Induced Inhomogenieties
Author(s) -
Lopez P,
LaFontaine R,
Burns L,
Tambasco M
Publication year - 2014
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 - 10.1118/1.4888467
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , ionization chamber , nuclear medicine , materials science , dosimetry , percentage depth dose curve , beam (structure) , linear particle accelerator , algorithm , physics , mathematics , optics , ion , medicine , ionization , quantum mechanics
Purpose: To compare the dosimetric accuracy of the Eclipse 11.0 Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Pinnacle‐3 9.2 Collapsed Cone Convolution, and the iPlan 4.1 Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) algorithms using measurement as the gold standard. Methods: Ion chamber and diode measurements were taken for 6, 10, and 18 MV beams in a phantom made up of slab densities corresponding to solid water, lung, and bone. The phantom was setup at source‐to‐surface distance of 100 cm, and the field sizes were 3.0 × 3.0, 5.0 × 5.0, and 10.0 × 10.0 cm2. Data from the planning systems were computed along the central axis of the beam. The measurements were taken using a pinpoint chamber and edge diode for interface regions. Results: The best agreement between data from the algorithms and our measurements occurs away from the slab interfaces. For the 6 MV beam, iPlan 4.1 MC software performs the best with 1.7% absolute average percent difference from measurement. For the 10 MV beam, iPlan 4.1 PB performs the best with 2.7% absolute average percent difference from measurement. For the 18 MV beam, Acuros performs the best with 2.0% absolute average percent difference from measurement. It is interesting to note that the steepest drop in dose occurred the at lung heterogeneity‐solid water interface of the18 MV, 3.0 × 3.0 cm2 field size setup. In this situation, Acuros and AAA performed best with an average percent difference within −1.1% of measurement, followed by iPlan 4.1 MC, which was within 4.9%. Conclusion: This study shows that all of the algorithms perform reasonably well in computing dose in a heterogeneous slab phantom. Moreover, Acuros and AAA perform particularly well at the lung‐solid water interfaces for higher energy beams and small field sizes.