Premium
Poster — Thur Eve — 76: Dosimetric Comparison of Pinnacle and iPlan Algorithms with an Anthropomorphic Lung Phantom
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 - 10.1118/1.4894937
Subject(s) - isocenter , imaging phantom , nuclear medicine , pinnacle , ionization chamber , radiation treatment planning , linear particle accelerator , dosimetry , physics , algorithm , radiation therapy , beam (structure) , mathematics , medicine , optics , radiology , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
Our goal is to compare the dosimetric accuracy of the Pinnacle‐3 9.2 Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition (CCCS) and the iPlan 4.1 Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) algorithms in an anthropomorphic lung phantom using measurement as the gold standard. Ion chamber measurements were taken for 6, 10, and 18 MV beams in a CIRS E2E SBRT Anthropomorphic Lung Phantom, which mimics lung, spine, ribs, and tissue. The plan implemented six beams with a 5×5 cm 2 field size, delivering a total dose of 48 Gy. Data from the planning systems were computed at the treatment isocenter in the left lung, and two off‐axis points, the spinal cord and the right lung. The measurements were taken using a pinpoint chamber. The best results between data from the algorithms and our measurements occur at the treatment isocenter. For the 6, 10, and 18 MV beams, iPlan 4.1 MC software performs the best with 0.3%, 0.2%, and 4.2% absolute percent difference from measurement, respectively. Differences between our measurements and algorithm data are much greater for the off‐axis points. The best agreement seen for the right lung and spinal cord is 11.4% absolute percent difference with 6 MV iPlan 4.1 PB and 18 MV iPlan 4.1 MC, respectively. As energy increases absolute percent difference from measured data increases up to 54.8% for the 18 MV CCCS algorithm. This study suggests that iPlan 4.1 MC computes peripheral dose and target dose in the lung more accurately than the iPlan 4.1 PB and Pinnicale CCCS algorithms.