Email this article 
Post a Comment 
A decision tool to adjust the prescribed dose after change in the dose calculation algorithm
Abstract
Purpose: This work aims to introduce a method to quantify and assess the differences in monitor unites MUs when changing to new dose calculation software that uses a different algorithm, and to evaluate the need and extent of adjustment of the prescribed dose to maintain the same clinical results.
Methods: Doses were calculated using two classical algorithms based on the Pencil Beam Convolution PBC model, using 6 patients presenting lung cancers. For each patient, 3 treatment plans were generated: Plan 1 was calculated using reference algorithm PBC without heterogeneity correction, Plan 2 was calculated using test algorithm with heterogeneity correction, and in plan 3 the dose was recalculated using test algorithm and monitor unites MUs obtained from plan 1 as input. To assess the differences in the calculated MUs, isocenter dose, and spatial dose distributions using a gamma index were compared. Statistical analysis was based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: The test algorithm in plan 2 calculated significantly less MUs than reference algorithm in plan 1 by on average 5%, (p < 0.001). We also found underestimating dose for target volumes using 3D gamma index analysis. In this example, in order to obtain the same clinical outcomes with the two algorithms the prescribed dose should be adjusted by 5%.
Conclusion: This method provides a quantitative evaluation of the differences between two dose calculation algorithms and the consequences on the prescribed dose. It could be used to adjust the prescribed dose when changing calculation software to maintain the same clinical results as obtained with the former software. In particular, the gamma evaluation could be applied to any situation where changes in the dose calculation occur in radiotherapy.
Keywords
References
Morgan AM, Knoos T, McNee SG, et al. Clinical implications of the implementation of advanced treatment planning algorithms for thoracic treatments. Radiother Oncol 2008; 86:48-54.
Knoos T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51:5785-807.
Aarup LR, Nahum AE, Zacharatou C, et al. The effect of different lung densities on the accuracy of various radiotherapy dose calculation methods: Implications for tumour coverage. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009; 91: 405–414.
De Ruysscher D, Faivre-Finn C, Nestle U, et al. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations for planning and delivery of high-dose, high-precision radiotherapy for lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:5301-10.
Storchi PR, van Battum LJ, Woudstra E. Calculation of a pencil beam kernel from measured photon beam data. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44:2917-28.
Ahnesjo A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 99-155.
Storchi P, Woudstra E. Calculation of the absorbed dose distribution due to irregularly shaped photon beams using pencil beam kernels derived from basic beam data. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41: 637-56.
Batho HF. Lung corrections in cobalt 60 beam therapy. J Can Assoc Radiol 1964; 15:79-83.
El-Khatib E, Battista JJ. Improved lung dose calculation using tissue-maximum ratios in the Batho correction. Med Phys 1984; 11:279-86.
Thomas SJ. A modified power-law formula for inhomogeneity corrections in beams of high-energy x rays. Med Phys 1991; 18:719-23.
ICRU Report 50. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland 1993.
ICRU Report 62. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy supplement to ICRU Report 50, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland 1999.
Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998; 25: 656–61.
Spezi E, Lewis DG. Gamma histograms for radiotherapy plan evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79: 224-30.
Marguet M. Radiothérapie guidée par l’image: maîtrise des éléments matériel- application à l’analyse des conséquences dosimétriques dues aux variations anatomiques au cours de traitement ORL. Thèse de doctorat en Radiophysiqe et imagerie médicale. Université Toulouse 3: 2009.
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. A 3D quantitative evaluation for assessing the changes of treatment planning system and irradiation techniques in radiotherapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:02033.
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Perrin E, et al. The choice of statistical methods for comparisons of dosimetric data in radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9:205.
Palta JR, Mackie TR. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, The State of the Art. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 29. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing; 2003.
Papanikolaou N, Battista JJ, Boyer AL, Kappas C, Klein C, Mackie TR, et al. Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. Report of Task Group No. 65 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicist in Medicine. AAPM Report No. 85. Available from: http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_85.pdf
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. A method to quantify and assess the dosimetric and clinical impact resulting from the heterogeneity correction in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:020110.
Herman TF, Hibbitts K, Herman T, Ahmad S. Evaluation of pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithms in stereotactic lung irradiation. J Med Phys 2011; 36: 234-38.
Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. Prise en compte des hétérogénéités tissulaires, impacts dosimétriques pour la planification et la réalisation des traitements. Cancer Radiothérapie 2010; 14: 599.
Oyewale S. Dose prediction accuracy of collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm in a multi-layer inhomogenous phantom. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2013; 1:01016.
Lu L. Dose calculation algorithms in external beam photon radiation therapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2013; 1:01025.
Rana S. Clinical dosimetric impact of Acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on real lung cancer treatment plans: review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:02019.
Amankwaa-Frempong E, Vernimmen F, Blay S, Ezhilalan R. Irradiation of lung and esophagus tumors: A comparison of dose distributions calculated by anisotropic analytical algorithm and pencil beam convolution algorithm, a retrospective dosimetric study. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:020210.
Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys 2011; 38: 1037-44.
Nelms B, Jarry G, Chan M, et al. Real-world examples of sensitivity failures of the 3%/3mm pass rate metric and published action levels when used in IMRT/VMAT system commissioning. Journal of Physics 2013; 444:012086.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0204.14
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)
© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.
Number of visits since October, 2013