Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Clinical evaluation for the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and calculated to water by Monte Carlo method

Authors: Li Chen, Botian Huang, Xiaoyan Huang, Wufei Cao, Wenzhao Sun, Xiaowu Deng

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and to water by a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm based treatment planning system (TPS), and to assess the potential clinical impact to dose prescription.

Methods

Thirty patients, 10 nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 10 lung cancer and 10 bone metastases cases, were selected for this study. For each case, the treatment plan was generated using a commercial MC based TPS and dose was calculated to medium (Dm). The plan was recalculated for dose to water (Dw) using the same Monitor Units (MU) and control points. The differences between Dm and Dw were qualitatively evaluated by dose-volume parameters and by the plan subtraction method. All plans were measured using the MapCheck2, and gamma passing rates were calculated.

Results

For NPC and Lung cases, the mean differences between Dw and Dm for the targets were less than 2% and the maximum difference was 3.9%. The maximum difference of D2% for the organs at risk (OARs) was 6.7%. The maximum differences between Dw and Dm were as high as 10% in certain high density regions. For bone metastases cases, the mean differences between Dw and Dm for the targets were more than 2.2% and the maximum difference was 7.1%. The differences between Dw and Dm for the OARs were basically negligible. At 3%&3 mm criterion, the gamma passing rate of Dw plan and Dm plan were close (> 94%).

Conclusion

The differences between Dw and Dm has little clinical impact for most clinical cases. In bony structures the differences may become clinically significant if the target/OAR is receiving doses close to its tolerance limit which can potentially influence the selection or rejection of a particular plan.
Literature
1.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). ICRU Report No.33: Radiation quantities and units. Washington: ICRU; 1980. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). ICRU Report No.33: Radiation quantities and units. Washington: ICRU; 1980.
2.
go back to reference Papanikolaou N, Battista J, Boyer A, Kappas C, Kein E, Mackie TR, Sharpe M, Dyk JV. AAPM Report No.85: Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. AAPM Report No. 85. Madison: Medical Physics Publishing; 2004. p. 1–135. Papanikolaou N, Battista J, Boyer A, Kappas C, Kein E, Mackie TR, Sharpe M, Dyk JV. AAPM Report No.85: Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. AAPM Report No. 85. Madison: Medical Physics Publishing; 2004. p. 1–135.
3.
go back to reference Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Clivio A, Winkler P, Cozzi L. The impact of photon dose calculation algorithms on expected dose distributions in lungs under different respiratory phases. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:2375–90.CrossRefPubMed Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Clivio A, Winkler P, Cozzi L. The impact of photon dose calculation algorithms on expected dose distributions in lungs under different respiratory phases. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:2375–90.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kathirvel M, Subramanian S, Clivio A, Arun G, Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Subramani V, Thirumalai Swamy S, Vanetti E, Cozzi L. Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8(1):140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kathirvel M, Subramanian S, Clivio A, Arun G, Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Subramani V, Thirumalai Swamy S, Vanetti E, Cozzi L. Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8(1):140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Hartmann Siantar CL, Walling RS, Daly TP, Faddegon B, Albright N, Bergstrom P, Beilajew AF, Chuang C, Garrett D, RK H, Knapp D, Wieczorek DJ, Verhey LJ. Description and dosimetric verification of the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system for photon beams incident on a water phantom. Med Phys. 2001;28:1322–37.CrossRefPubMed Hartmann Siantar CL, Walling RS, Daly TP, Faddegon B, Albright N, Bergstrom P, Beilajew AF, Chuang C, Garrett D, RK H, Knapp D, Wieczorek DJ, Verhey LJ. Description and dosimetric verification of the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system for photon beams incident on a water phantom. Med Phys. 2001;28:1322–37.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Mika S, Christ G. Experimental validation of a Monte Carlo-based treatment-planning system for Electron beams. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007;3:150–6.CrossRef Mika S, Christ G. Experimental validation of a Monte Carlo-based treatment-planning system for Electron beams. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007;3:150–6.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Li J, Doemer A, Harrison AS, Galvin JM, Xiao Y. Dose calculation using Monte Carlo algorithm of Monaco treatment planning system. Int J of Radiat Oncol Bio Phys. 2008;72:S674.CrossRef Li J, Doemer A, Harrison AS, Galvin JM, Xiao Y. Dose calculation using Monte Carlo algorithm of Monaco treatment planning system. Int J of Radiat Oncol Bio Phys. 2008;72:S674.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan M. Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:983–95.CrossRefPubMed Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan M. Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:983–95.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Liu H, Keall P. Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. Med Phys. 2002;29:922–4.CrossRefPubMed Liu H, Keall P. Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. Med Phys. 2002;29:922–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Andreo P. Dose to ‘water-like’ media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:309–37.CrossRefPubMed Andreo P. Dose to ‘water-like’ media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:309–37.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 50: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda: ICRU; 1993. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 50: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda: ICRU; 1993.
12.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 62: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda: ICRU; 1999. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 62: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (supplement to ICRU report 50). Bethesda: ICRU; 1999.
13.
go back to reference International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 46: Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body issues. Bethesda: ICRU; 1992. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 46: Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body issues. Bethesda: ICRU; 1992.
14.
go back to reference Fippel M. Fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for photon beams based on the VMC electron algorithm. Med Phys. 1999;26:1466-75. Fippel M. Fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for photon beams based on the VMC electron algorithm. Med Phys. 1999;26:1466-75.
16.
go back to reference Ma CM, Li J. Dose specification for radiation therapy: dose to water or dose to medium? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3073–89.CrossRefPubMed Ma CM, Li J. Dose specification for radiation therapy: dose to water or dose to medium? Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3073–89.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Fippel M, Nusslin F. Comments on ‘ converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations’. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:L17.CrossRefPubMed Fippel M, Nusslin F. Comments on ‘ converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations’. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:L17.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, DeMarco JJ, Ezzel G, Faddegon BA, Kawrakow I, Keall PJ, Liu H, Ma CM, Rogers DW, Seuntjens J, Bagheri DS, Siebers JV. Report of the AAPM Task Group No.105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carl-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med Phys. 2007;34:4818–53.CrossRefPubMed Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, DeMarco JJ, Ezzel G, Faddegon BA, Kawrakow I, Keall PJ, Liu H, Ma CM, Rogers DW, Seuntjens J, Bagheri DS, Siebers JV. Report of the AAPM Task Group No.105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carl-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med Phys. 2007;34:4818–53.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Dogam N, Siebers JV, Keall PJ. Clinical comparison of head and neck and prostate IMRT plans using absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:4967–80.CrossRef Dogam N, Siebers JV, Keall PJ. Clinical comparison of head and neck and prostate IMRT plans using absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:4967–80.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kan MW, Leung LH, So RW, Yu PK. Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2013;40:031714. 1–19CrossRefPubMed Kan MW, Leung LH, So RW, Yu PK. Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2013;40:031714. 1–19CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clinical evaluation for the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and calculated to water by Monte Carlo method
Authors
Li Chen
Botian Huang
Xiaoyan Huang
Wufei Cao
Wenzhao Sun
Xiaowu Deng
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1081-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Radiation Oncology 1/2018 Go to the issue