Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields

Chee Wai Cheng, Indra J. Das, Walter Tang, Sha Chang, Jen San Tsai, Crister Ceberg, Barbara De Gaspie, Rajinder Singh, Douglas A. Fein, Barbara Fowble

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the dosimetric differences of the different treatment planning systems (TPS) in breast irradiation with tangential fields, and (2) to study the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions in tangential breast irradiation with 6 MV linear accelerators from different manufacturers. Methods and Materials: Nine commercial and two university-based TPS are evaluated in this study. The computed tomographic scan of three representative patients, labeled as 'small' 'medium' and 'large' based on their respective chest wall separations in the central axis plane (CAX) were used. For each patient, the tangential fields were set up in each TPS. The CAX distribution was optimized separately with lung correction, for each TPS based on the same set of optimization conditions. The isodose distributions in two other off-axis planes, one 6 cm cephalic and the other 6 cm caudal to the CAX plane were also computed. To investigate the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions, a three-dimensional TPS was used to calculate the isodose distributions for three different linear accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100, the Siemens MD2 and the Philips SL/7 for the three patients. In addition, dose distributions obtained with 6 MV X-rays from two different accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100 and the Varian 2100C, were compared. Results: For all TPS, the dose distributions in all three planes agreed qualitatively to within ± 5% for the 'small' and the 'medium' patients. For the 'large' patient, all TPS agreed to within ± 4% on the CAX plane. The isodose distributions in the caudal plane differed by ± 5% among all TPS. In the cephalic plane in which the patient separation is much larger than that in the CAX plane, six TPS correctly calculated the dose distribution showing a cold spot in the center of the breast contour. The other five TPS showed that the center of the breast received adequate dose. Isodose distributions for 6 MV X-rays from three different accelerators differed by about ± 3% for the 'small' patient and more than ± 5% for the 'large' patient. For two different 6 MV machines of the same manufacturer, the isodose distribution agreed to within ± 2% for all three planes for the 'large' patient Conclusion: The differences observed among the various TPS in this study were within ± 5% for both the 'small' and the 'medium' patients while doses at the hot spot exhibit a larger variation. The large discrepancy observed in the off-axis plane for the 'large patient is largely due to the inability of most TPS to incorporate the collimator angles in the dose calculation. Only six systems involved agreed to within ± 5% for all three patients in all calculation planes. The difference in dose distributions obtained with three accelerators from different manufacturers is probably due to the difference in beam profiles. On the other hand, the 6 MV X-rays from two different models of linear accelerators from the same manufacturer have similar beam characteristics and the dose distributions are within ± 2% of each other throughout the breast volume. In general, multi-institutional breast treatment data can be compared within a ± 5% accuracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)835-842
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

breast
planning
Breast
irradiation
dosage
Particle Accelerators
Therapeutics
linear accelerators
accelerators
X-Rays
Head
Patient Advocacy
x rays
chest
Thoracic Wall
collimators
lungs
Lung

Keywords

  • Tangential breast irradiation
  • Treatment planning systems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields. / Cheng, Chee Wai; Das, Indra J.; Tang, Walter; Chang, Sha; Tsai, Jen San; Ceberg, Crister; De Gaspie, Barbara; Singh, Rajinder; Fein, Douglas A.; Fowble, Barbara.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 38, No. 4, 01.07.1997, p. 835-842.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cheng, CW, Das, IJ, Tang, W, Chang, S, Tsai, JS, Ceberg, C, De Gaspie, B, Singh, R, Fein, DA & Fowble, B 1997, 'Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields', International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 835-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-3
Cheng, Chee Wai ; Das, Indra J. ; Tang, Walter ; Chang, Sha ; Tsai, Jen San ; Ceberg, Crister ; De Gaspie, Barbara ; Singh, Rajinder ; Fein, Douglas A. ; Fowble, Barbara. / Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 1997 ; Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 835-842.
@article{a8dddc00f93c461eaa4293db20673677,
title = "Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields",
abstract = "Purpose: The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the dosimetric differences of the different treatment planning systems (TPS) in breast irradiation with tangential fields, and (2) to study the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions in tangential breast irradiation with 6 MV linear accelerators from different manufacturers. Methods and Materials: Nine commercial and two university-based TPS are evaluated in this study. The computed tomographic scan of three representative patients, labeled as 'small' 'medium' and 'large' based on their respective chest wall separations in the central axis plane (CAX) were used. For each patient, the tangential fields were set up in each TPS. The CAX distribution was optimized separately with lung correction, for each TPS based on the same set of optimization conditions. The isodose distributions in two other off-axis planes, one 6 cm cephalic and the other 6 cm caudal to the CAX plane were also computed. To investigate the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions, a three-dimensional TPS was used to calculate the isodose distributions for three different linear accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100, the Siemens MD2 and the Philips SL/7 for the three patients. In addition, dose distributions obtained with 6 MV X-rays from two different accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100 and the Varian 2100C, were compared. Results: For all TPS, the dose distributions in all three planes agreed qualitatively to within ± 5{\%} for the 'small' and the 'medium' patients. For the 'large' patient, all TPS agreed to within ± 4{\%} on the CAX plane. The isodose distributions in the caudal plane differed by ± 5{\%} among all TPS. In the cephalic plane in which the patient separation is much larger than that in the CAX plane, six TPS correctly calculated the dose distribution showing a cold spot in the center of the breast contour. The other five TPS showed that the center of the breast received adequate dose. Isodose distributions for 6 MV X-rays from three different accelerators differed by about ± 3{\%} for the 'small' patient and more than ± 5{\%} for the 'large' patient. For two different 6 MV machines of the same manufacturer, the isodose distribution agreed to within ± 2{\%} for all three planes for the 'large' patient Conclusion: The differences observed among the various TPS in this study were within ± 5{\%} for both the 'small' and the 'medium' patients while doses at the hot spot exhibit a larger variation. The large discrepancy observed in the off-axis plane for the 'large patient is largely due to the inability of most TPS to incorporate the collimator angles in the dose calculation. Only six systems involved agreed to within ± 5{\%} for all three patients in all calculation planes. The difference in dose distributions obtained with three accelerators from different manufacturers is probably due to the difference in beam profiles. On the other hand, the 6 MV X-rays from two different models of linear accelerators from the same manufacturer have similar beam characteristics and the dose distributions are within ± 2{\%} of each other throughout the breast volume. In general, multi-institutional breast treatment data can be compared within a ± 5{\%} accuracy.",
keywords = "Tangential breast irradiation, Treatment planning systems",
author = "Cheng, {Chee Wai} and Das, {Indra J.} and Walter Tang and Sha Chang and Tsai, {Jen San} and Crister Ceberg and {De Gaspie}, Barbara and Rajinder Singh and Fein, {Douglas A.} and Barbara Fowble",
year = "1997",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "835--842",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields

AU - Cheng, Chee Wai

AU - Das, Indra J.

AU - Tang, Walter

AU - Chang, Sha

AU - Tsai, Jen San

AU - Ceberg, Crister

AU - De Gaspie, Barbara

AU - Singh, Rajinder

AU - Fein, Douglas A.

AU - Fowble, Barbara

PY - 1997/7/1

Y1 - 1997/7/1

N2 - Purpose: The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the dosimetric differences of the different treatment planning systems (TPS) in breast irradiation with tangential fields, and (2) to study the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions in tangential breast irradiation with 6 MV linear accelerators from different manufacturers. Methods and Materials: Nine commercial and two university-based TPS are evaluated in this study. The computed tomographic scan of three representative patients, labeled as 'small' 'medium' and 'large' based on their respective chest wall separations in the central axis plane (CAX) were used. For each patient, the tangential fields were set up in each TPS. The CAX distribution was optimized separately with lung correction, for each TPS based on the same set of optimization conditions. The isodose distributions in two other off-axis planes, one 6 cm cephalic and the other 6 cm caudal to the CAX plane were also computed. To investigate the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions, a three-dimensional TPS was used to calculate the isodose distributions for three different linear accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100, the Siemens MD2 and the Philips SL/7 for the three patients. In addition, dose distributions obtained with 6 MV X-rays from two different accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100 and the Varian 2100C, were compared. Results: For all TPS, the dose distributions in all three planes agreed qualitatively to within ± 5% for the 'small' and the 'medium' patients. For the 'large' patient, all TPS agreed to within ± 4% on the CAX plane. The isodose distributions in the caudal plane differed by ± 5% among all TPS. In the cephalic plane in which the patient separation is much larger than that in the CAX plane, six TPS correctly calculated the dose distribution showing a cold spot in the center of the breast contour. The other five TPS showed that the center of the breast received adequate dose. Isodose distributions for 6 MV X-rays from three different accelerators differed by about ± 3% for the 'small' patient and more than ± 5% for the 'large' patient. For two different 6 MV machines of the same manufacturer, the isodose distribution agreed to within ± 2% for all three planes for the 'large' patient Conclusion: The differences observed among the various TPS in this study were within ± 5% for both the 'small' and the 'medium' patients while doses at the hot spot exhibit a larger variation. The large discrepancy observed in the off-axis plane for the 'large patient is largely due to the inability of most TPS to incorporate the collimator angles in the dose calculation. Only six systems involved agreed to within ± 5% for all three patients in all calculation planes. The difference in dose distributions obtained with three accelerators from different manufacturers is probably due to the difference in beam profiles. On the other hand, the 6 MV X-rays from two different models of linear accelerators from the same manufacturer have similar beam characteristics and the dose distributions are within ± 2% of each other throughout the breast volume. In general, multi-institutional breast treatment data can be compared within a ± 5% accuracy.

AB - Purpose: The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the dosimetric differences of the different treatment planning systems (TPS) in breast irradiation with tangential fields, and (2) to study the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions in tangential breast irradiation with 6 MV linear accelerators from different manufacturers. Methods and Materials: Nine commercial and two university-based TPS are evaluated in this study. The computed tomographic scan of three representative patients, labeled as 'small' 'medium' and 'large' based on their respective chest wall separations in the central axis plane (CAX) were used. For each patient, the tangential fields were set up in each TPS. The CAX distribution was optimized separately with lung correction, for each TPS based on the same set of optimization conditions. The isodose distributions in two other off-axis planes, one 6 cm cephalic and the other 6 cm caudal to the CAX plane were also computed. To investigate the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions, a three-dimensional TPS was used to calculate the isodose distributions for three different linear accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100, the Siemens MD2 and the Philips SL/7 for the three patients. In addition, dose distributions obtained with 6 MV X-rays from two different accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100 and the Varian 2100C, were compared. Results: For all TPS, the dose distributions in all three planes agreed qualitatively to within ± 5% for the 'small' and the 'medium' patients. For the 'large' patient, all TPS agreed to within ± 4% on the CAX plane. The isodose distributions in the caudal plane differed by ± 5% among all TPS. In the cephalic plane in which the patient separation is much larger than that in the CAX plane, six TPS correctly calculated the dose distribution showing a cold spot in the center of the breast contour. The other five TPS showed that the center of the breast received adequate dose. Isodose distributions for 6 MV X-rays from three different accelerators differed by about ± 3% for the 'small' patient and more than ± 5% for the 'large' patient. For two different 6 MV machines of the same manufacturer, the isodose distribution agreed to within ± 2% for all three planes for the 'large' patient Conclusion: The differences observed among the various TPS in this study were within ± 5% for both the 'small' and the 'medium' patients while doses at the hot spot exhibit a larger variation. The large discrepancy observed in the off-axis plane for the 'large patient is largely due to the inability of most TPS to incorporate the collimator angles in the dose calculation. Only six systems involved agreed to within ± 5% for all three patients in all calculation planes. The difference in dose distributions obtained with three accelerators from different manufacturers is probably due to the difference in beam profiles. On the other hand, the 6 MV X-rays from two different models of linear accelerators from the same manufacturer have similar beam characteristics and the dose distributions are within ± 2% of each other throughout the breast volume. In general, multi-institutional breast treatment data can be compared within a ± 5% accuracy.

KW - Tangential breast irradiation

KW - Treatment planning systems

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18844466583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18844466583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-3

DO - 10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00078-3

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 835

EP - 842

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 4

ER -