The comparison of collapsed cone and Monte Carlo algorithms in tangential breast planning

IF 0.3 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice Pub Date : 2023-04-20 DOI:10.1017/S1460396923000146
M. Goss, C. Champ, M. Trombetta, Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, Valerie DeMartino, R. Wegner, S. Beriwal, Veronica Eisen
{"title":"The comparison of collapsed cone and Monte Carlo algorithms in tangential breast planning","authors":"M. Goss, C. Champ, M. Trombetta, Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, Valerie DeMartino, R. Wegner, S. Beriwal, Veronica Eisen","doi":"10.1017/S1460396923000146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction: This study compared dose metrics between tangent breast plans calculated with the historical standard collapsed cone (CC) and the more accurate Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. The intention was to correlate current plan quality metrics from the currently used CC algorithm with doses calculated using the more accurate MC algorithm. Methods: Thirteen clinically treated patients, whose plans had been calculated using the CC algorithm, were identified. These plans were copied and recalculated using the MC algorithm. Various dose metrics were compared for targets and the time necessary to perform each calculation. Special consideration was given to V105%, as this is increasingly being used as a predictor of skin toxicity and plan quality. Finally, both the CC and MC plans for 4 of the patients were delivered onto a dose measurement phantom used to analyse quality assurance (QA) pass rates. These pass rates, using various evaluation criteria, were also compared. Results: Metrics such as the PTVeval D95% and V95% showed a variation of 6% or less between the CC and MC plans, while the PTVeval V100% showed variation up to 20%. The PTVeval V105% showed a relative increase of up to 593% after being recalculated with MC. The time necessary to perform calculations was 76% longer on average for CC plans than for those recalculated using MC. On average, the QA pass rates using 2%2mm and 3%3mm gamma criteria for CC plans were lower (19·2% and 5·5%, respectively) than those recalculated using MC. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates MC-calculated PTVeval V105% values are significantly higher than those calculated using CC. PTVeval V105% is often used as a benchmark for acceptable plan quality and a predictor of acute toxicity. We have also shown that calculation times for MC are comparable to those for CC. Therefore, what is considered acceptable PTVeval V105% criteria should be redefined based on more accurate MC calculations.","PeriodicalId":44597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396923000146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: This study compared dose metrics between tangent breast plans calculated with the historical standard collapsed cone (CC) and the more accurate Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. The intention was to correlate current plan quality metrics from the currently used CC algorithm with doses calculated using the more accurate MC algorithm. Methods: Thirteen clinically treated patients, whose plans had been calculated using the CC algorithm, were identified. These plans were copied and recalculated using the MC algorithm. Various dose metrics were compared for targets and the time necessary to perform each calculation. Special consideration was given to V105%, as this is increasingly being used as a predictor of skin toxicity and plan quality. Finally, both the CC and MC plans for 4 of the patients were delivered onto a dose measurement phantom used to analyse quality assurance (QA) pass rates. These pass rates, using various evaluation criteria, were also compared. Results: Metrics such as the PTVeval D95% and V95% showed a variation of 6% or less between the CC and MC plans, while the PTVeval V100% showed variation up to 20%. The PTVeval V105% showed a relative increase of up to 593% after being recalculated with MC. The time necessary to perform calculations was 76% longer on average for CC plans than for those recalculated using MC. On average, the QA pass rates using 2%2mm and 3%3mm gamma criteria for CC plans were lower (19·2% and 5·5%, respectively) than those recalculated using MC. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates MC-calculated PTVeval V105% values are significantly higher than those calculated using CC. PTVeval V105% is often used as a benchmark for acceptable plan quality and a predictor of acute toxicity. We have also shown that calculation times for MC are comparable to those for CC. Therefore, what is considered acceptable PTVeval V105% criteria should be redefined based on more accurate MC calculations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缩锥算法与蒙特卡罗算法在切向乳房规划中的比较
摘要简介:本研究比较了用历史标准塌陷锥(CC)和更准确的蒙特卡罗(MC)算法计算的切线乳腺计划之间的剂量指标。其目的是将来自当前使用的CC算法的当前计划质量指标与使用更准确的MC算法计算的剂量相关联。方法:确定13名临床治疗患者,他们的计划是使用CC算法计算的。使用MC算法复制并重新计算这些计划。针对目标和执行每次计算所需的时间,比较了各种剂量指标。特别考虑了V105%,因为它越来越多地被用作皮肤毒性和计划质量的预测指标。最后,将其中4名患者的CC和MC计划交付到用于分析质量保证(QA)通过率的剂量测量体模上。还使用各种评估标准对这些通过率进行了比较。结果:PTVeval D95%和V95%等指标在CC和MC计划之间显示出6%或更低的变化,而PTVeval V100%显示出高达20%的变化。PTVeval V105%在使用MC重新计算后显示出高达593%的相对增长。CC计划执行计算所需的时间平均比使用MC重新重新计算的计划长76%。平均而言,CC计划使用2%2mm和3%3mm伽马标准的QA通过率比使用MC重算的计划低(分别为19.2%和5.5%)。结论:我们的研究表明,MC计算的PTVeval V105%值明显高于使用CC计算的值。PTVeval V105%通常被用作可接受计划质量的基准和急性毒性的预测指标。我们还表明,MC的计算时间与CC的计算时间相当。因此,应根据更准确的MC计算重新定义可接受的PTVeval V105%标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice is a peer-reviewed journal covering all of the current modalities specific to clinical oncology and radiotherapy. The journal aims to publish research from a wide range of styles and encourage debate and the exchange of information and opinion from within the field of radiotherapy practice and clinical oncology. The journal also aims to encourage technical evaluations and case studies as well as equipment reviews that will be of interest to an international radiotherapy audience.
期刊最新文献
Wobbling nature of gamma passing rate as a function of calibration field sizes in patient-specific quality assurance Secondary fragmentation and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) study using Bridge SOI microdosimeter: Monte Carlo simulation Keratin-based topical cream for radiation dermatitis during head and neck radiotherapy: a randomised, open-label pilot study. Single catheter 3d volume based hybrid inverse planning optimization in IVBT can improve organ sparing – CORRIGENDUM Dosimetric case study of 3-D FiF vs. VMAT techniques in the treatment of H/N tumour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1