Browse > Article

Comparison of Dose Distributions Calculated by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and Pencil Beam Convolution Algorithm at Tumors Located in Liver Dome Site  

Park, Byung-Do (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Jung, Sang-Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Park, Sung-Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Kwak, Jeong-Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Kim, Jong-Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Yoon, Sang-Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Ahn, Seung-Do (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Progress in Medical Physics / v.23, no.2, 2012 , pp. 106-113 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variation of radiation dose distribution for liver tumor located in liver dome and for the interest organs(normal liver, kidney, stomach) with the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm versus anisotropic Analyticalal algorithm (AAA) of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, The target volumes from 20 liver cancer patients were used to create treatment plans. Treatment plans for 10 patients were performed in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) plan and others were performed in 3 Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) plan. dose calculation was recalculated by AAA algorithm after dose calculation was performed by PBC algorithm for 20 patients. Plans were optimized to 100% of the PTV by the Prescription Isodose in Dose Calculation with the PBC algorithm. Plans were recalculated with the AAA, retaining identical beam arrangements, monitor units, field weighting and collimator condition. In this study, Total PTV was to be statistically significant (SRS: p=0.018, 3DCRT: p=0.006) between PBC and AAA algorithm. and in the case of PTV, ITV in liver dome, plans for 3DCRT were to be statistically significant respectively (p=0.013, p=0.024). normal liver and kidney were to be statistically significant (p=0.009, p=0.037). For the predictive index of dose variation, CVF ratio was to be statistically significant for PTV in the liver dome versus PTV (SRS r=0.684, 3DCRT r=0.732, p<0.01) and CVF ratio for Tumor size was to be statistically significant (SRS r=-0.193, p=0.017, 3DCRT r=0.237, p=0.023).
Keywords
Liver Dome; Lesion coverage factor (CVF); Heterogeneity; Pencil Beam Convolution; Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Timmerman R, McGarry R, Yiannoutsos C, et al: Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4833-4839 (2006)   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Timmerman R, Kavanagh B, Chinsoo Cho L, Papiez L, Xing L: Stereotactic body radiation therapy in multiple organ sites. J Clin Oncol 25:947-952 (2007)   DOI   ScienceOn
3 AAPM Report 85: Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Medical Physics Publishing Madison (2004)
4 Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, et al: Sterotactic body radiation therapy : The report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys 37:4078-4101 (2010)   DOI   ScienceOn
5 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 51:5785-5807 (2006)   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Christopher MB, Wingate K, Conway J: Clinical implications of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for IMRT treatment planning and verification. Radiother Oncol 86(2):276-284 (2008)   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Ulmer W, Harder D: Applications of a triple gaussian pencil beam model for photon beam treatment planning. Med Phys 6:68-74 (1996)   DOI
8 Sievinen J, Ulmers W, Kaissl W: AAA photon dose calculation model in eclipse. Varian RandD #7170B. Palo Alto, CA, Varian (2005) pp.1-23
9 Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Clivio A, Cozzi L: Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic Analyticalal algorithm for photon dose calculation: Fundamental characterization in water. Phys Med Biol 51:1421-1438 (2006)   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Kan MW, Cheung JY, Leung LH, Lau BM, Yu PK: The accuracy of dose calculations by anisotropic Analyticalal algorithms for stereotactic radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 56:397-413 (2011)   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Josefsson A: Evaluation of the Anisotropic Analyticalal Algorithm (AAA) for 6MV photon energy, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Radiation Physics Göteborg University (2008)
12 International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: Determination of Absorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated by Beams of X or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy. ICRU Report 24 (1976)
13 Carrasco P, Jomet N, Duch MA, et al: Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in phantom with lung equivalent heterogeneities under conditions of lateral disequilibrium. Med Phys 31:2899-2911 (2004)   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Herman Tde L, Hibbitts K, Herman T, Ahmad S: Evaluation of pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithm in stereotactic lung irradiation. J Med Phys 36:234-238 (2011)   DOI
15 Xiao Y, Papiez L, Paulus R, et, al: Dosimetric evaluation of heterogeneity corrections for RTOG 0236 : Stereotatic body radiation therapy of inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:1235-1242 (2009)   DOI   ScienceOn