• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.197-206
• /
• 2017

We develop guidelines for the quality assurance of radiation treatment planning systems (TPS) by comparing and reviewing recommendations from major countries and organizations, as well as by analyzing the AAPM, ESTRO, and IAEA TPS quality assurance guidelines. We establish quality assurance items for acceptance testing, commissioning, periodic testing, system management, and security, and propose methods to perform each item within acceptable standards. Acceptance includes tests of hardware and network environments, data transmission, software, and benchmarking as specified by the system supplier, and apply the IAEA classification criteria. Commissioning includes dosimetric and non-dosimetric items for assessing TPS performance by applying the AAPM classification criteria and the latest technical items from the IAEA. Periodic quality assurance tests include daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and occasional items by applying the AAPM classification criteria. System management and security items include the state and network connectivity of TPS, periodic data backup, and data access security. The guidelines for TPS quality assurance proposed in this study will help to improve the safety and quality of radiotherapy by preventing incidents related to radiotherapy.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.53 no.12
• /
• pp.4098-4105
• /
• 2021

The aim of this study is to calculate the JO-IMRT dose distributions based on the AAPM TG-119 using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and Prowess Panther treatment planning system (TPS) (Panther, Prowess Inc., Chico, CA). JO-IMRT dose distributions of AAPM TG-119 were calculated by the TPS and were recalculated by MC simulation. The DVHs and 3D gamma index using global methods implemented in the PTW-VeriSoft with 3%/3 mm were used for evaluation. JO-IMRT dose distributions calculated by TPS and MC were matched the TG-119 goals. The gamma index passing rates with 3%/3 mm were 98.7% for multi-target, 96.0% for mock prostate, 95.4% for mock head-and-neck, and 96.6% for C-shape. The dose in the planning target volumes (PTV) for TPS was larger than that for the MC. The relative dose differences in D99 between TPS and MC for multi-target are 1.52%, 0.17% and 1.40%, for the center, superior and inferior, respectively. The differences in D95 are 0.16% for C-shape; and 0.06% for mock prostate. Mock head-and-neck difference is 0.40% in D99. In contrast, the organ curve for TPS tended to be smaller than MC values. JO-IMRT dose distributions for the AAPM TG-119 calculated by the TPS agreed well with the MC.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.232-235
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to develop the treatment planning system (TPS) based on Monte-Carlo simulation for BNCT. In this paper, we will propose a method for dose estimation by Monte-Carlo simulation using the CT image, and will evaluate the accuracy of dose estimation of this TPS. The complicated geometry like a human body allows defining using the lattice function in MCNPX. The results of simulation such as flux or energy deposition averaged over a cell, can be obtained using the features of the tally provided by MCNPX. To assess the dose distribution and therapeutic effect, dose distribution was displayed on the CT image, and dose volume histogram (DVH) was employed in our developed system. The therapeutic effect can be efficiently evaluated by these evaluation tool. Our developed TPS could be effectively performed creating the voxel model from CT image, the estimation of each dose component, and evaluation of the BNCT plan.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.59-65
• /
• 2018

Background: We analyzed changes in the doses, structure volumes, and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) when data were transferred from one commercial treatment planning system (TPS) to another commercial TPS. Materials and Methods: A total of 22 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for nasopharyngeal cancer were generated with the Eclipse system using 6-MV photon beams. The computed tomography (CT) images, dose distributions, and structure information, including the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs), were transferred from the Eclipse to the MRIdian system in digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) format. Thereafter, DVHs of the OARs and PTVs were generated in the MRIdian system. The structure volumes, dose distributions, and DVHs were compared between the MRIdian and Eclipse systems. Results and Discussion: The dose differences between the two systems were negligible (average matching ratio for every voxel with a 0.1% dose difference criterion = $100.0{\pm}0.0%$). However, the structure volumes significantly differed between the MRIdian and Eclipse systems (volume differences of $743.21{\pm}461.91%$ for the optic chiasm and $8.98{\pm}1.98%$ for the PTV). Compared to the Eclipse system, the MRIdian system generally overestimated the structure volumes (all, p < 0.001). The DVHs that were plotted using the relative structure volumes exhibited small differences between the MRIdian and Eclipse systems. In contrast, the DVHs that were plotted using the absolute structure volumes showed large differences between the two TPSs. Conclusion: DVH interpretation between two TPSs should be performed using DVHs plotted with the absolute dose and absolute volume, rather than the relative values.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.77-86
• /
• 2016

Purpose : When a radiation treatment, there is an attenuation by Carbon Fiber Couch. In this study, we tried to evaluate the usability of the Varian Standard Couch(VSC) by modeling with Treatment Planning System (TPS) Materials and Methods : VSC was scanned by CBCT(Cone Beam Computed Tomography) of the Linac(Clinac IX, VARIAN, USA), following the three conditions of VSC, Side Rail OutGrid(SROG), Side Rail InGrid(SRIG), Side Rail In OutSpine Down Bar(SRIOS). After scan, the data was transferred to TPS and modeled by contouring Side Rail, Side Bar Upper, Side Bar Lower, Spine Down Bar automatically. We scanned the Cheese Phantom(Middelton, USA) using Computed Tomography(Light Speed RT 16, GE, USA) and transfer the data to TPS, and apply VSC modeled previously with TPS to it. Dose was measured at the isocenter of Ion Chamber(A1SL, Standard imaging, USA) in Cheese Phantom using 4 and 10 MV radiation for every $5^{\circ}$ gantry angle in a different filed size($3{\times}3cm^2$, $10{\times}10cm^2$) without any change of MU(=100), and then we compared the calculated dose and measured dose. Also we included dose at the $127^{\circ}$ in SRIG to compare the attenuation by Side Bar Upper. Results : The density of VSC by CBCT in TPS was $0.9g/cm^3$, and in the case of Spine Down Bar, it was $0.7g/cm^3$. The radiation was attenuated by 17.49%, 16.49%, 8.54%, and 7.59% at the Side Rail, Side Bar Upper, Side Bar Lower, and Spine Down Bar. For the accuracy of modeling, calculated dose and measured dose were compared. The average error was 1.13% and the maximum error was 1.98% at the $170^{\circ}beam$ crossing the Spine Down Bar. Conclusion : To evaluate the usability for the VSC modeled by TPS, the maximum error was 1.98% as a result of compassion between calculated dose and measured dose. We found out that VSC modeling helped expect the dose, so we think that it will be helpful for the more accurate treatment.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.163-170
• /
• 2014

Purpose : If electron, chosen for superficial oncotherapy, was applied with bolus, it could work as an important factor to a therapy result by showing a drastic change in surface dose. Hence the calculation value and the actual measurement value of surface dose of Treatment Planning System (TPS) according to four variables influencing surface dose when using bolus on an electron therapy were compared and analyzed in this paper. Materials and Methods : Four variables which frequently occur during the actual therapies (A: bolus thickness - 3, 5, 10 mm, B: field size - $6{\time}6$, $10{\time}10$, $15{\time}15cm2$, C: energy - 6, 9, 12 MeV, D: gantry angle - $0^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$) were set to compare the actual measurement value with TPS(Pinnacle 9.2, philips, USA). A computed tomography (lightspeed ultra 16, General Electric, USA) was performed using 16 cm-thick solid water phantom without bolus and total 54 beams where A, B, C, and D were combined after creating 3, 5 and 10 mm bolus on TPS were planned for a therapy. At this moment SSD 100 cm, 300 MU was investigated and measured twice repeatedly by placing it on iso-center by using EBT3 film(International Specialty Products, NJ, USA) to compare and analyze the actual measurement value and TPS. Measured film was analyzed with each average value and standard deviation value using digital flat bed scanner (Expression 10000XL, EPSON, USA) and dose density analyzing system (Complete Version 6.1, RIT, USA). Results : For the values according to the thickness of bolus, the actual measured values for 3, 5 and 10 mm were 101.41%, 99.58% and 101.28% higher respectively than the calculation values of TPS and the standard deviations were 0.0219, 0.0115 and 0.0190 respectively. The actual values according to the field size were $6{\time}6$, $10{\time}10$ and $15{\time}15cm2$ which were 99.63%, 101.40% and 101.24% higher respectively than the calculation values and the standard deviations were 0.0138, 0.0176 and 0.0220. The values according to energy were 6, 9, and 12 MeV which were 99.72%, 100.60% and 101.96% higher respectively and the standard deviations were 0.0200, 0.0160 and 0.0164. The actual measurement value according to beam angle were measured 100.45% and 101.07% higher at $0^{\circ}$ and $15^{\circ}$ respectively and standard deviations were 0.0199 and 0.0190 so they were measured 0.62% higher at $15^{\circ}$ than $0^{\circ}$. Conclusion : As a result of analyzing the calculation value of TPS and measurement value according to the used variables in this paper, the values calculated with TPS on 5 mm bolus, $6{\time}6cm2$ field size and low-energy electron at $0^{\circ}$ gantry angle were closer to the measured values, however, it showed a modest difference within the error bound of maximum 2%. If it was beyond the bounds of variables selected in this paper using electron and bolus simultaneously, the actual measurement value could differ from TPS according to each variable, therefore QA for the accurate surface dose would have to be performed.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.137-143
• /
• 2013

Purpose: We are to find out the difference of calculated dose of treatment planning system (TPS) and measured dose in case of inhomogeneous organ structure. Materials and Methods: Inhomogeneous phantom is made with solid water phantom and cork plate. CT image of inhomogeneous phantom is acquired. Treatment plan is made with TPS (Pinnacle3 9.2. Royal Philips Electronics, Netherlands) and calculated dose of point of interest is acquired. Treatment plan was delivered in the inhomogeneous phantom by ARTISTE (Siemens AG, Germany) measured dose of each point of interest is obtained with Gafchromic EBT2 film (International Specialty Products, US) in the gap between solid water phantom or cork plate. To simulate lung cancer radiation treatment, artificial tumor target of paraffin is inserted in the cork volume of inhomogeneous phantom. Calculated dose and measured dose are acquired as above. Results: In case of inhomogeneous phantom experiment, dose difference of calculated dose and measured dose is about -8.5% at solid water phantom-cork gap and about -7% lower in measured dose at cork-solid water phantom gap. In case of inhomogeneous phantom inserted paraffin target experiment, dose difference is about 5% lower in measured dose at cork-paraffin gap. There is no significant difference at same material gap in both experiments. Conclusion: Radiation dose at the gap between two organs with different electron density is significantly lower than calculated dose with TPS. Therefore, we must be aware of dose calculation error in TPS and great care is suggested in case of radiation treatment planning on inhomogeneous organ structure.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.10-15
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the diverse characteristics of a novel commercial bolus, CLEANBOLUS-WHITE (CBW), to ascertain its suitability for clinical application. Methods: The evaluation of CBW encompassed both physical and biological assessments. Physical parameters such as mass density and shore hardness were measured alongside analyses of element composition. Biological evaluations included assessments for skin irritation and cytotoxicity. Dosimetric properties were examined by calculating surface dose and beam quality using a treatment planning system (TPS). Additionally, doses were measured at maximum and reference depths, and the results were compared with those obtained using a solid water phantom. The effect of air gap on dose measurement was also investigated by comparing measured doses on the RANDO phantom, under the bolus, with doses calculated from the TPS. Results: Biological evaluation confirmed that CBW is non-cytotoxic, nonirritant, and non-sensitizing. The bolus exhibited a mass density of 1.02 g/cm³ and 14 shore 00. Dosimetric evaluations revealed that using the 0.5 cm CBW resulted in less than a 1% difference compared to using the solid water phantom. Furthermore, beam quality calculations in the TPS indicated increased surface dose with the bolus. The air gap effect on dose measurement was deemed negligible, with a difference of approximately 1% between calculated and measured doses, aligning with measurement uncertainty. Conclusions: CBW demonstrates outstanding properties for clinical utilization. The dosimetric evaluation underscores a strong agreement between calculated and measured doses, validating its reliability in both planning and clinical settings.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.15-22
• /
• 2023

This study compared the dose calculated using the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm employing the old version (eMC V13.7) of the Varian Eclipse treatment-planning system (TPS) and its newer version (eMC V16.1). The eMC V16.1 was configured using the same beam data as the eMC V13.7. Beam data measured using the VitalBeam linear accelerator were implemented. A box-shaped water phantom (30×30×30 cm³) was generated in the TPS. Consequently, the TPS with eMC V13.7 and eMC V16.1 calculated the dose to the water phantom delivered by electron beams of various energies with a field size of 10×10 cm². The calculations were repeated while changing the dose-smoothing levels and normalization method. Subsequently, the percentage depth dose and lateral profile of the dose distributions acquired by eMC V13.7 and eMC V16.1 were analyzed. In addition, the dose-volume histogram (DVH) differences between the two versions for the heterogeneous phantom with bone and lung inserted were compared. The doses calculated using eMC V16.1 were similar to those calculated using eMC V13.7 for the homogenous phantoms. However, a DVH difference was observed in the heterogeneous phantom, particularly in the bone material. The dose distribution calculated using eMC V16.1 was comparable to that of eMC V13.7 in the case of homogenous phantoms. The version changes resulted in a different DVH for the heterogeneous phantoms. However, further investigations to assess the DVH differences in patients and experimental validations for eMC V16.1, particularly for heterogeneous geometry, are required.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.41 no.6
• /
• pp.567-572
• /
• 2018

Radiation therapy is one of the beneficial choices in the treatment of cancer. This is a comparison of TPS(Treatment Planning System) and GEANT4-DICOM, which should be preceded by the best radiation therapy. A treatment plan for prostate cancer was established with Eclipse and the point doses 366.1 cGy, 189.1 cGy, 213.4 cGy, 127 cGy, 105.7 cGy of any five prostate, bladder, rectum, right femoral head and left femoral head were identified. GEANT4-DICOM simulation showed that the results of Eclipse and ${\pm}2%$ dose error were confirmed. The monthly X-ray output agreement management value recommended by TG-142 is ${\pm}2%$, which means that the experimental results can be meaningful. In conclusion, GEANT4-DICOM is an infinite way to obtain more extended dose information once the time constraints are overcome in the simulation.