Evaluation of Eclipse 3D plans using an independent treatment planning system
Purpose: The goal of the current investigation was to compare complex 3D conformal plans generated on Eclipse™ treatment planning system (TPS) with independent dose calculations from radiation oncology planning system (ROPS™) TPS used as a secondary quality assurance check.
Methods: Fifteen cancer patients that were treated with complex conformal treatment plans with cobalt and linac beams, using Eclipse TPS, were selected for this study. The structure sets, treatment beam data and prescription information were exported from the Eclipse TPS using DICOM-RT export. Using custom software, these data were imported into ROPS TPS. Independent dose calculation on the ROPS planning system using Clarkson summation algorithm was done. The dose volume histograms (DVH) from both planning systems were extracted and analyzed using custom software. Dose assessment was accomplished by defining criteria based on gross tumor volume (GTV) dose coverage, dose homogeneity and mean dose. For organs at risk (OAR) other than GTV, the main dose parameters were, mean dose and percentage of volume receiving 95% of prescription dose.
Results: For the GTV, all 15 cases met the criteria set for the mean dose and dose homogeneity index. However, breast cases were found to have deviation in the percentage volume receiving the 95% of prescription dose.
Conclusion: Using the criteria set for plan acceptance, all the 15 clinical cases were evaluated. Except for breast tangent plans, all plans passed all the criteria set. The large deviation for breast tangent plans was attributed to differences in dose calculation algorithms.
Gossman MS, Bank MI, Dose-volume histogram quality assurance for linac-based treatment planning systems. J Med Phys. 2010;35:197-201.
Kessler ML, Ten Haken RK, Fraass BA, et al. Expanding the use and effectiveness of dose-volume histograms for 3D treatment planning. I: Integration of 3-D dose-display. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;29:1125-31.
Panitsa E, Rosenwald JC, Kappas C. Quality control of dose volume histogram computation characteristics of 3D treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:2807-16.
Drzymala RE, Mohan R, Brewster L, et al. Dose-volume histograms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol. 1991;21:71–8.
Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose volume histogram. Radiat Res Suppl.1985;8:S13–9.
Kutcher GJ, Burman C, Brewster L. Histogram reduction method for calculating complication probabilities for three dimensional treatment planning evaluations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:137–46.
Oinam AS, Singh L, Shukla A, et al. Dose volume histogram analysis and comparison of different radiobiological models using in-house developed software. J Med Phys. 2011;36:220-9.
Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron JJ, et al. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(2):333–42.
Leung LH, Kan MW, Cheng ACK, et al. A new dose–volume-based plan quality index for IMRT plan comparison. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85:407–17.
Knoos T, Kristensen I, Nilsson P. Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:1169–76.
Pyakuryal A, Myint WK, Gopalakrishnan M, et al. A computational tool for the efficient analysis of dose-volume histograms for radiation therapy treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:3013.
Weinberg R, Kaurin DG, Choy H et al. Dosimetric uncertainties of three-dimensional dose reconstruction from two-dimensional data in a multi-institutional study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2004;5:15-28.
Henriquez, FC, Castrillón SV. A Novel Method for the Evaluation of Uncertainty in Dose-Volume Histogram Computation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:1263-1271.
Nelms B, Stambaugh C, Hunt D, et al. Methods, software and datasets to verify DVH calculations against analytical values: Twenty years late(r). Med Phys. 2015;42:4435-48.
Ayyangar KM, Fung AY, Li S et al. Dose volume histogram comparison between ADAC Pinnacle and Nomos Corvus systems for IMRT. Australias Phys Eng Sci Med. 2005;28:1-7.
Nelson CL, Mason BE, Robinson RC, et al. Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system. [Electronic version]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4838: 57-65.
Kumar AA, Akula RR, Ayyangar K et al. In-house quality check of external beam plans using 3D treatment planning systems - a DVH comparison. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:138-46.
Kumar A, Rani RA, Ayyangar KM et al. Commissioning and quality assurance of a new radiation oncology treatment planning system (ROPS). Proceedings of National conference on Environmental Radiation and Functional Materials (NCERFM)2015;OP-46.
Sri Krishna G, Akula RR, Anil Kumar A, et al. DVH Analysis of Cobalt-60 treatment plans incorporating a recently developed MLC. Int J Canc Ther Onc. 2016;4:1-5.
Yoon M, Park SY, Shin D et al. A new homogeneity index based on statistical analysis of the dose-volume histogram. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007;8:9-17.
Kataria T, Sharma K, Subramani V, et al. Homogeneity index: An objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments. J Med Phys. 2012;37:207-13.
Straube W, Mathews J, Bosch WR, et al. DVH analysis: consequences for quality assurance of multi-institutional clinical trials. Med Phys. 2005;32:2021-2.
Ebert MA, Haworth A, Kearvell R et al. Comparison of DVH data from multiple radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:N337-46.
Min BJ, Nam H, Jeong IS, et al. A simple DVH generation technique for various radiotherapy treatment planning systems for an independent information system. J Korean Phy Soc. 2015;67:254-259.
Prabhakar R, Rath GK, Haresh KP et al. A study on the tumor volume computation between different 3D treatment planning systems in radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther. 2011;7:168-7.
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.