Premium
SU‐E‐T‐277: Dose Calculation Comparisons Between Monaco, Pinnacle and Eclipse Treatment Planning Systems
Author(s) -
Bosse C,
Narayanasamy G,
Kirby N,
Mavroidis P,
Papanikolaou N,
Stathakis 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 - 10.1118/1.4924639
Subject(s) - pinnacle , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , monte carlo method , dose volume histogram , imaging phantom , dosimetry , eclipse , voxel , mathematics , physics , medicine , radiation therapy , statistics , radiology , astronomy
Purpose: Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) version 5.0 uses a Monte‐Carlo based dose calculation engine. The aim of this study is to verify and compare the Monaco based dose calculations with both Pinnacle 3 collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCC) and Eclipse analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) calculations. Methods: For this study, previously treated SBRT lung, head and neck and abdomen patients were chosen to compare dose calculations between Pinnacle, Monaco and Eclipse. Plans were chosen from those that had been treated using the Elekta VersaHD or a NovalisTX linac. The plans included 3D conventional and IMRT beams using 6MV and 6MV Flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams. The original plans calculated with CCCS or AAA along with the recalculated ones using MC from the three TPS were exported into Velocity software for inter‐comparison. Results: To compare the dose calculations, Mean Lung Dose (MLD), lung V5 and V20 values, and PTV Heterogeneity indexes (HI) and Conformity indexes (CI) were all calculated and recorded from the dose volume histograms (DVH). For each patient, the CI values were identical but there were differences in all other parameters. The HI was computed higher by 5 and 4% for calculated plans AAA and CCCS respectively, compared to the MC ones. The DVH graphs showed large differences between the CCCS and AAA and Monaco for 3D FFF, VMAT and IMRT plans. Better DVH agreement between was observed for 3D conventional plans. Conclusion: Better agreement was observed between CCCS and MC calculations than AAA and MC calculations. Those differences were more profound as the field size was decreasing and in the presence of inhomogeneities.