...
首页> 外文期刊>Radiation oncology >Comparison of dose calculations between pencil-beam and Monte Carlo algorithms of the iPlan RT in arc therapy using a homogenous phantom with 3DVH software
【24h】

Comparison of dose calculations between pencil-beam and Monte Carlo algorithms of the iPlan RT in arc therapy using a homogenous phantom with 3DVH software

机译:使用3DVH软件使用均质体模进行弧光治疗时iPlan RT的笔形束和Monte Carlo算法之间剂量计算的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background To create an arc therapy plan, certain current general calculation algorithms such as pencil-beam calculation (PBC) are based on discretizing the continuous arc into multiple fields to simulate an arc. The iPlan RT? treatment planning system incorporates not only a PBC algorithm, but also a more recent Monte Carlo calculation (MCC) algorithm that does not need beam discretization. The objective of this study is to evaluate the dose differences in a homogenous phantom between PBC and MCC by using a three-dimensional (3D) diode array detector (ArcCHECK?) and 3DVH software. Methods A cylindrically shaped ‘target’ region of interest (ROI) and a ‘periphery ROI’ surrounding the target were designed. An arc therapy plan was created to deliver 600?cGy to the target within a 350° rotation angle, calculated using the PBC and MCC algorithms. The radiation doses were measured by the ArcCHECK, and reproduced by the 3DVH software. Through this process, we could compare the accuracy of both algorithms with regard to the 3D gamma passing rate (for the entire area and for each ROI). Results Comparing the PBC and MCC planned dose distributions directly, the 3D gamma passing rates for the entire area were 97.7% with the gamma 3%/3?mm criterion. Comparing the planned dose to the measured dose, the 3D gamma passing rates were 98.8% under the PBC algorithm and 100% under the MCC algorithm. The difference was statistically significant (p?=?0.034). Furthermore the gamma passing rate decreases 7.5% in the PBC when using the 2%/2?mm criterion compared to only a 0.4% decrease under the MCC. Each ROI as well as the entire area showed statistically significant higher gamma passing rates under the MCC algorithm. The failure points that did not satisfy the gamma criteria showed a regular pattern repeated every 10°. Conclusions MCC showed better accuracy than the PBC of the iPlan RT in calculating the dose distribution in arc therapy, which was validated with the ArcCHECK and the 3DVH software. This may suggest that the arc step of 10° is too large in the PBC algorithm in the iPlan RT.
机译:背景技术为了创建电弧治疗计划,某些当前的通用计算算法(例如笔形束计算(PBC))是基于将连续电弧离散化为多个场来模拟电弧。 iPlan RT?治疗计划系统不仅结合了PBC算法,还结合了不需要波束离散化的最新蒙特卡罗计算(MCC)算法。这项研究的目的是通过使用三维(3D)二极管阵列检测器(ArcCHECK?)和3DVH软件来评估PBC和MCC之间同质体模中的剂量差异。方法设计了圆柱形的“目标”感兴趣区域(ROI)和围绕目标的“周边ROI”。制定了电弧治疗计划,以在350°旋转角度内将600?cGy的目标传递给目标,该目标使用PBC和MCC算法计算得出。辐射剂量由ArcCHECK测量,并由3DVH软件复制。通过此过程,我们可以比较两种算法在3D伽玛通过率方面的准确性(对于整个区域和每个ROI)。结果直接比较PBC和MCC计划的剂量分布,在3%/ 3?mm的伽玛标准下,整个区域的3D伽玛通过率是97.7%。将计划剂量与测量剂量进行比较,在PBC算法下,3D伽玛通过率是98.8%,在MCC算法下是100%。差异具有统计学意义(p≤0.034)。此外,当使用2%/ 2?mm标准时,PBC中的伽马通过率降低了7.5%,而在MCC中,伽玛通过率仅降低了0.4%。在MCC算法下,每个ROI以及整个区域在统计上都显示出较高的伽玛通过率。不满足伽马标准的失效点显示出每10°重复的规则模式。结论MCC在计算电弧治疗剂量分布方面显示出比iPlan RT的PBC更好的准确性,这已通过ArcCHECK和3DVH软件进行了验证。这可能表明在iPlan RT中的PBC算法中10°的弧度步幅太大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号