Premium
WE‐A‐17A‐08: Evaluation of the OncentraBrachy Collapsed Cone Convolution Algorithm for Ir‐192 Source Using Phantom and Real‐Patient Heterogeneous Geometries
Author(s) -
Ma Y,
Lacroix F,
Lavallee M,
Beaulieu L
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 - 10.1118/1.4889378
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , convolution (computer science) , monte carlo method , mathematics , nuclear medicine , algorithm , physics , computer science , optics , artificial intelligence , medicine , statistics , artificial neural network
Purpose: To evaluate the commercially released Collapsed Cone convolution‐based(CCC) dose calculation module of the Elekta OncentraBrachy(OcB) treatment planning system(TPS). Methods: An allwater phantom was used to perform TG43 benchmarks with single source and seventeen sources, separately. Furthermore, four real‐patient heterogeneous geometries (chestwall, lung, breast and prostate) were used. They were selected based on their clinical representativity of a class of clinical anatomies that pose clear challenges. The plans were used as is(no modification). For each case, TG43 and CCC calculations were performed in the OcB TPS, with TG186‐recommended materials properly assigned to ROIs. For comparison, Monte Carlo simulation was run for each case with the same material scheme and grid mesh as TPS calculations. Both modes of CCC (standard and high quality) were tested. Results: For the benchmark case, the CCC dose, when divided by that of TG43, yields hot‐n‐cold spots in a radial pattern. The pattern of the high mode is denser than that of the standard mode and is representative of angular dicretization. The total deviation ((hot‐cold)/TG43) is 18% for standard mode and 11% for high mode. Seventeen dwell positions help to reduce “ray‐effect”, with the total deviation to 6% (standard) and 5% (high), respectively. For the four patient cases, CCC produces, as expected, more realistic dose distributions than TG43. A close agreement was observed between CCC and MC for all isodose lines, from 20% and up; the 10% isodose line of CCC appears shifted compared to that of MC. The DVH plots show dose deviations of CCC from MC in small volume, high dose regions (>100% isodose). For patient cases, the difference between standard and high modes is almost undiscernable. Conclusion: OncentraBrachy CCC algorithm marks a significant dosimetry improvement relative to TG43 in real‐patient cases. Further researches are recommended regarding the clinical implications of the above observations. Support provided by a CIHR grant and CCC system provided by Elekta‐Nucletron