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
. 2022 May 19;27(2):241-249.
doi: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0019. eCollection 2022.

Influence of optional measurement parameters in the Eclipse treatment planning system on the quality of the dosimetric model of the biomedical accelerator using the Acuros XB algorithm

Adam Gądek  1 , Jacek Wendykier  1 , Aleksandra Grządziel  1 , Barbara Bekman  1 , Barbara Smolińska  1 , Adam Bekman  1 , Beata Niewiadomska  2 , Joanna Prażmowska  2 , Bożena Woźniak  2 , Krzysztof Ślosarek  1
Affiliations

Influence of optional measurement parameters in the Eclipse treatment planning system on the quality of the dosimetric model of the biomedical accelerator using the Acuros XB algorithm

Adam Gądek et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. .

Abstract

Background: To properly configure a treatment planning system, a measurement data set is needed, which consists of the values required for its configuration. The aim is to obtain a dosimetric model of the beam that is as compatible as possible with the measured values. The set of required data can be supplemented with optional values. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of optional measurement data on the compliance of the calculations with the measurements.

Materials and methods: Dosimetric measurements, model configuration and dose distribution calculations were performed for the photon radiation beams generated by the VMS TrueBeam® linear accelerator. Beams were configured on an Eclipse™ v. 15.6 system using the Acuros v. 15.6 algorithm. The measured and calculated data were entered into the Alfard™ software for comparison with the calculated dose distributions. In the last stage, the absolute dose values at the designated points were also compared. The obtained data were statistically analysed with Statistica™ v. 13.3.

Results: The work showed that the differences in the shape of the beam profile, depth dose and the dose value in points were not related to the use of optional data. Differences in dose distributions are within the tolerance. It cannot be determined under which conditions the use of optional data has a more favourable effect on the reflection of the actual dose values.

Conclusions: The use of optional data in modelling photon radiation beams does not significantly improve the compliance of the calculated and measured dose values.

Keywords: dosimetric verification; optional data; statistical significance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The method of comparing the measured data with the calculated data, used in the presented work [own study]. TPS — treatment planning system
Figure 2
Figure 2
Profile of the X-ray beam 6 MV, fields 10 x10 cm2, at a depth of 20.0 cm with marked areas: 1 — therapeutic; 2 — penumbra; 3 — umbra [own study]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of deep beam dose × 6 MV of the field 10 × 10 cm2 with marked areas: 1 — dose increase; 2 — dose decrease [own study]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. International Atomic Energy Agency. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer. Technical Reports Series no 430. IAEA; Vienna: 2004.
    1. International Atomic Energy Agency. Commissioning of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems: Testing for Typical External Beam Treatment Techniques. IAEA; Vienna: 2008. IAEA TECDOC – 1583.
    1. Dybek M, Winiecki J, Iwanicki T, et al. Kontrola systemów planowania leczenia 3D w radioterapii wiązkami zewn¸trznymi fotonów i elektronów. Pol J Med Phys Eng. 2014;20(1):1–32. doi: 10.2478/pjmpe-2014-0001. - DOI
    1. Wendykier J, Bieniasiewicz M, Grządziel A, et al. Determination of bounds between ranges of high and low gradient of beam profile. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21(13):168–173. doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2015.12.007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, et al. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2651–2664. doi: 10.1118/1.3582690. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources