Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm

Irina Fotina, Gabriele Kragl, Bernhard Kroupa, Robert Trausmuth, Dietmar Georg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially avail-able Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. Material and Methods: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucle-tron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed us-ing Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). Results: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. Conclusion: Mean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)433-441
Number of pages9
JournalStrahlentherapie und Onkologie
Volume187
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Monaco
Organs at Risk
Radiosurgery
Therapeutics
Lung

Keywords

  • Collapsed cone algorithm
  • Dose calculation
  • IMRT
  • Monte Carlo

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Oncology

Cite this

Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm. / Fotina, Irina; Kragl, Gabriele; Kroupa, Bernhard; Trausmuth, Robert; Georg, Dietmar.

In: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, Vol. 187, No. 7, 07.2011, p. 433-441.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fotina, Irina ; Kragl, Gabriele ; Kroupa, Bernhard ; Trausmuth, Robert ; Georg, Dietmar. / Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm. In: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie. 2011 ; Vol. 187, No. 7. pp. 433-441.
@article{9a0f4e833401426e8feaedf6a9acf09a,
title = "Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm",
abstract = "Purpose: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially avail-able Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. Material and Methods: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucle-tron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed us-ing Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). Results: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8{\%}. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2{\%}) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5{\%}). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. Conclusion: Mean dose prediction errors < 3{\%} for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.",
keywords = "Collapsed cone algorithm, Dose calculation, IMRT, Monte Carlo",
author = "Irina Fotina and Gabriele Kragl and Bernhard Kroupa and Robert Trausmuth and Dietmar Georg",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s00066-011-2215-9",
language = "English",
volume = "187",
pages = "433--441",
journal = "Strahlentherapie und Onkologie",
issn = "0179-7158",
publisher = "Urban und Vogel",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm

AU - Fotina, Irina

AU - Kragl, Gabriele

AU - Kroupa, Bernhard

AU - Trausmuth, Robert

AU - Georg, Dietmar

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Purpose: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially avail-able Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. Material and Methods: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucle-tron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed us-ing Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). Results: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. Conclusion: Mean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.

AB - Purpose: Comparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially avail-able Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. Material and Methods: A total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucle-tron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed us-ing Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos). Results: Recalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS. Conclusion: Mean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.

KW - Collapsed cone algorithm

KW - Dose calculation

KW - IMRT

KW - Monte Carlo

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052081268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052081268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00066-011-2215-9

DO - 10.1007/s00066-011-2215-9

M3 - Article

VL - 187

SP - 433

EP - 441

JO - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

JF - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

SN - 0179-7158

IS - 7

ER -