Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Sep 8;15(5):4787.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4787.

Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system

Bongile Mzenda  1 , Koki V Mugabe, Rick Sims, Guy Godwin, Dayan Loria
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system

Bongile Mzenda et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

The physics modeling, dose calculation accuracy and plan quality assessment of the RayStation (v3.5) treatment planning system (TPS) is presented in this study, with appropriate comparisons to the more established Pinnacle (v9.2) TPS. Modeling and validation for the Elekta MLCi and Agility beam models resulted in a good match to treatment machine-measured data based on tolerances of 3% for in-field and out-of-field regions, 10% for buildup and penumbral regions, and a gamma 2%/2mm dose/distance acceptance criteria. TPS commissioning using a wide range of appropriately selected dosimetry equipment, and following published guidelines, established the MLC modeling and dose calculation accuracy to be within standard tolerances for all tests performed. In both homogeneous and heterogeneous mediums, central axis calculations agreed with measurements within 2% for open fields and 3% for wedged fields, and within 4% off-axis. Treatment plan comparisons for identical clinical goals were made to Pinnacle for the following complex clinical cases: hypofractionated non-small cell lung carcinoma, head and neck, stereotactic spine, as well as for several standard clinical cases comprising of prostate, brain, and breast plans. DVHs, target, and critical organ doses, as well as measured point doses and gamma indices, applying both local and global (Van Dyk) normalization at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm (10% lower threshold) acceptance criteria for these composite plans were assessed. In addition 3DVH was used to compare the perturbed dose distributions to the TPS 3D dose distributions. For all 32 cases, the patients QA checks showed > 95% of pixels passing 3% global/3mm gamma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of the iterative beam modeling steps followed to match the TPS beam models to the measured data.
Figure 2
Figure 2
6 MV open field (a) PDDs and (b) cross‐plane profiles showing matches between measured data and RayStation for Agility beam model, and corresponding data for MLCi model (c), and (d), for field sizes from 1 × 1 cm to 40 × 40 cm (red=measured,blue=RayPhysics computed, all at resolution of 0.1 cm).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Location and results of ten off‐axis fields for Agility model, 2 × 2 cm to 6 × 6 cm measured at 10 cm depth, for point‐dose verification at (a) 6 MV and (b) 10 MV.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Off‐axis Agility model 15 × 15 cm wedged field: (a) depth dose in heel, (b) profiles in heel, (c) depth dose in toe, and (d) profiles in toe.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Measurement configurations for dose verification in inhomogeneous phantoms at depth of 10 cm.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Simplified Garden Fence field setup for 4 cm and 2 cm exposed areas and 2.5 cm shielded areas (a), and results for MLCi model (b) and Agility model (c).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Fingers test field setup for (a) MLCi model and (b) Agility model, and the corresponding results (c) and (d), showing good match to EBT3 GAFCHROMIC film.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Strip test pattern result of ten (1 cm × 10 cm) step‐and‐shoot segments for the Agility model, showing RayStation profile (1 mm resolution), measured film profile, and CC01 point dose.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Typical DVH comparison for prostate VMAT plan showing 3DVH (solid line) and RayStation (dotted line) results, prescription (Px) dose 78 Gy. Blue=CTV,red=PTV,green=bladder,brown=rectum,turquoise=left femur,violet=right femur.
Figure 10
Figure 10
DVH comparison for (a) H&N VMAT plans, Px 54 Gy, and (b) noncoplanar hypofractionated left lung forward‐planned IMRT treatment plans, Px 50 Gy, from Pinnacle (solid line) and RayStation (dotted line). Blue=CTV,red=PTV,bright green=left parotid,pink=brainstem,brown=mandible,orange=spinal cord,green=left lung.
Figure 11
Figure 11
DVH comparison for H&N VMAT plans from 3DVH (solid line) and RayStation (dotted line). Blue=CTV,red=PTV,orange=spinal cord,pink=brainstem,brown=mandible.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fallone B, Carlone M, Murray B et al. Development of a Linac‐MRI system for real‐time ART [abstract]. Med Phys. 2007;34:2547.
    1. Topolnjak R, van der Heide UA, Meijer GJ, van Asselen B, Raaijmakers CPJ, Lagendijk JJW. Influence of linac design on intensity‐modulated radiotherapy of head‐and‐neck plans. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(1):169–82. - PubMed
    1. Lim S and LoSasso T. Beam and MLC commissioning and assessment of three commercial treatment planning systems [abstract]. Med Phys. 2012;39:3828. - PubMed
    1. Nuver TT, Minken AWH, Kramer GD, Ikink‐Wispelweij M, Hilgers GC, Westerndorp H. First experience with IMRT treatment plans created with RayStation [abstract]. Presented at the ASTRO 54th annual meeting, 28‐31 October 2012; Boston, MA.
    1. Sutton M, Pavord D, Sansourekidou P, Allen C. RayStation commissioning: a clinical implementation experience [abstract]. Presented at AAPM 55, 4‐8 August 2013; Indianapolis, IN.

LinkOut - more resources