Premium
SU‐E‐T‐192: Commissioning of a Commercial 3D Dose Calculation Program
Author(s) -
Langen K,
Guerrero M,
Killefer M,
Xu H,
Zhou J,
Zhang B,
Chen S
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924553
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , beam (structure) , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , ranging , ionization chamber , point (geometry) , range (aeronautics) , mathematics , computer science , medical physics , physics , optics , materials science , medicine , radiation therapy , geometry , surgery , telecommunications , composite material , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
Purpose: To commission a commercial software package (CSP) that is used as secondary dose calculation check. The CSP uses an independent golden data beam model. However, some parameters can be modified to generate a customer specific model. Plan comparisons and point dose measurements were performed to test if and to what extent the beam model needed adjustment to optimize results. Methods: Beam parameter configurations were compared between the CSP and both TPS. Twelve phantom test plans ranging from simple to complex were generated in two treatment planning systems (TPS). Tests included small field, off axis, EDW, IMRT and VMAT plans. For each plan a point dose was measured to establish ground truth. Lastly, patient plans were compared for both TPS systems and the CSP. Results: Beam parameters agreed within 2%. The output factors for small fields were changed for the 15 MV beam by 2 and 1.5 % for the 1 cm and 2 cm field sizes, respectively. For the 6 MV beam output factors were adjusted by 3−0.8% for field sizes ranging from 1 to 5 cm. The MLC dynamic leaf gap was adjusted by 1.5 mm for 18 MV beam. Differences between the CSP and the TPS were noted in the built‐up region. These differences affected the gamma pass rate in the surface region, however this effect is reduced with increasing number of beam angles and does not affect point dose calculations at depth. All IMRT and VMAT plans agreed with the CSP using a gamma pass rate of 95% (3%, 3mm). Conclusion: The CSP is used to verify point doses for all 3D plans generated in our clinic for the last 6 months. No point dose mismatches were encountered since the CSP was implemented. Next, the CSP will be adapted for secondary checks of all IMRT plans. KL had a beta tester agreement with Mobius Medical for an in‐kind equipment and software loan.