TH‐D‐AUD B‐06

Variability of Low‐Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi‐Institutional Collaborative Study

I. Das, C. Cheng, S. Srivastava, Colleen DesRosiers, S. Chang, B. Hasson, Z. Jiang, R. Mitra, V. Moskvin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The dosimetry of IMRT beamlets with low‐Z inhomogeneities is a difficult problem and its accuracy is highly uncertain due to lateral disequilibrium. Various inhomogeneity correction algorithms: pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone convolution (CC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Monte Carlo (MC), and combination of them are employed in different treatment planning systems (TPS) for dose calculations. This multi‐center collaborative study evaluates the accuracy and suitability of these algorithms for inhomogeneity correction in clinical trails. Method and Materials: A simple lung phantom was constructed with cork sheets (0.25 g/cm3) sandwiched between two 3 cm thick solid water slabs. The CT data of this phantom was sent to 8 institutions employing different TPS. Dose calculations were carried out at various depths over the field sizes: 0.5×0.5–10×10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV beams with grid size (2×2 mm2). The calculated inhomogeneity correction factor (CF) was compared with measured data using a micro‐chamber. Results: The calculated CF with various algorithms showed marked variability and can be categorized in two classes; pencil beam (PB) and MC based collapsed cone (CC). The CF calculated with PB rises steadily in the lung tissue whereas CC exhibits the effect of electron transport. The differences between measured and calculated CF values varied from 70% to −10% for 6 MV from small to large fields. For 15 MV beam, the differences are even larger for small fields but reduce significantly for large field sizes (>5×5cm2). Conclusion: It is concluded that PB based algorithms should be avoided for dose calculation in small fields with low‐Z inhomogeneities. The MC derived kernel based algorithms such as CC and AAA produce similar results to each other within ±10% and should be preferred for patient treatment in IMRT/SBRT. This study raises serious concerns in dosimetric variability in lung cancers possibly impacting the clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2008

Fingerprint

Lung
Electron Transport
Multicenter Studies
Lung Neoplasms
Clinical Trials
Water
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

TH‐D‐AUD B‐06 : Variability of Low‐Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi‐Institutional Collaborative Study. / Das, I.; Cheng, C.; Srivastava, S.; DesRosiers, Colleen; Chang, S.; Hasson, B.; Jiang, Z.; Mitra, R.; Moskvin, V.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 6, 01.01.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Das, I. ; Cheng, C. ; Srivastava, S. ; DesRosiers, Colleen ; Chang, S. ; Hasson, B. ; Jiang, Z. ; Mitra, R. ; Moskvin, V. / TH‐D‐AUD B‐06 : Variability of Low‐Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi‐Institutional Collaborative Study. In: Medical Physics. 2008 ; Vol. 35, No. 6.
@article{4ac62b5d40104684a1973b11d556e2c2,
title = "TH‐D‐AUD B‐06: Variability of Low‐Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi‐Institutional Collaborative Study",
abstract = "Purpose: The dosimetry of IMRT beamlets with low‐Z inhomogeneities is a difficult problem and its accuracy is highly uncertain due to lateral disequilibrium. Various inhomogeneity correction algorithms: pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone convolution (CC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Monte Carlo (MC), and combination of them are employed in different treatment planning systems (TPS) for dose calculations. This multi‐center collaborative study evaluates the accuracy and suitability of these algorithms for inhomogeneity correction in clinical trails. Method and Materials: A simple lung phantom was constructed with cork sheets (0.25 g/cm3) sandwiched between two 3 cm thick solid water slabs. The CT data of this phantom was sent to 8 institutions employing different TPS. Dose calculations were carried out at various depths over the field sizes: 0.5×0.5–10×10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV beams with grid size (2×2 mm2). The calculated inhomogeneity correction factor (CF) was compared with measured data using a micro‐chamber. Results: The calculated CF with various algorithms showed marked variability and can be categorized in two classes; pencil beam (PB) and MC based collapsed cone (CC). The CF calculated with PB rises steadily in the lung tissue whereas CC exhibits the effect of electron transport. The differences between measured and calculated CF values varied from 70{\%} to −10{\%} for 6 MV from small to large fields. For 15 MV beam, the differences are even larger for small fields but reduce significantly for large field sizes (>5×5cm2). Conclusion: It is concluded that PB based algorithms should be avoided for dose calculation in small fields with low‐Z inhomogeneities. The MC derived kernel based algorithms such as CC and AAA produce similar results to each other within ±10{\%} and should be preferred for patient treatment in IMRT/SBRT. This study raises serious concerns in dosimetric variability in lung cancers possibly impacting the clinical trials.",
author = "I. Das and C. Cheng and S. Srivastava and Colleen DesRosiers and S. Chang and B. Hasson and Z. Jiang and R. Mitra and V. Moskvin",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.2962908",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TH‐D‐AUD B‐06

T2 - Variability of Low‐Z Inhomogeneity Correction in IMRT/SBRT: A Multi‐Institutional Collaborative Study

AU - Das, I.

AU - Cheng, C.

AU - Srivastava, S.

AU - DesRosiers, Colleen

AU - Chang, S.

AU - Hasson, B.

AU - Jiang, Z.

AU - Mitra, R.

AU - Moskvin, V.

PY - 2008/1/1

Y1 - 2008/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The dosimetry of IMRT beamlets with low‐Z inhomogeneities is a difficult problem and its accuracy is highly uncertain due to lateral disequilibrium. Various inhomogeneity correction algorithms: pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone convolution (CC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Monte Carlo (MC), and combination of them are employed in different treatment planning systems (TPS) for dose calculations. This multi‐center collaborative study evaluates the accuracy and suitability of these algorithms for inhomogeneity correction in clinical trails. Method and Materials: A simple lung phantom was constructed with cork sheets (0.25 g/cm3) sandwiched between two 3 cm thick solid water slabs. The CT data of this phantom was sent to 8 institutions employing different TPS. Dose calculations were carried out at various depths over the field sizes: 0.5×0.5–10×10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV beams with grid size (2×2 mm2). The calculated inhomogeneity correction factor (CF) was compared with measured data using a micro‐chamber. Results: The calculated CF with various algorithms showed marked variability and can be categorized in two classes; pencil beam (PB) and MC based collapsed cone (CC). The CF calculated with PB rises steadily in the lung tissue whereas CC exhibits the effect of electron transport. The differences between measured and calculated CF values varied from 70% to −10% for 6 MV from small to large fields. For 15 MV beam, the differences are even larger for small fields but reduce significantly for large field sizes (>5×5cm2). Conclusion: It is concluded that PB based algorithms should be avoided for dose calculation in small fields with low‐Z inhomogeneities. The MC derived kernel based algorithms such as CC and AAA produce similar results to each other within ±10% and should be preferred for patient treatment in IMRT/SBRT. This study raises serious concerns in dosimetric variability in lung cancers possibly impacting the clinical trials.

AB - Purpose: The dosimetry of IMRT beamlets with low‐Z inhomogeneities is a difficult problem and its accuracy is highly uncertain due to lateral disequilibrium. Various inhomogeneity correction algorithms: pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone convolution (CC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Monte Carlo (MC), and combination of them are employed in different treatment planning systems (TPS) for dose calculations. This multi‐center collaborative study evaluates the accuracy and suitability of these algorithms for inhomogeneity correction in clinical trails. Method and Materials: A simple lung phantom was constructed with cork sheets (0.25 g/cm3) sandwiched between two 3 cm thick solid water slabs. The CT data of this phantom was sent to 8 institutions employing different TPS. Dose calculations were carried out at various depths over the field sizes: 0.5×0.5–10×10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV beams with grid size (2×2 mm2). The calculated inhomogeneity correction factor (CF) was compared with measured data using a micro‐chamber. Results: The calculated CF with various algorithms showed marked variability and can be categorized in two classes; pencil beam (PB) and MC based collapsed cone (CC). The CF calculated with PB rises steadily in the lung tissue whereas CC exhibits the effect of electron transport. The differences between measured and calculated CF values varied from 70% to −10% for 6 MV from small to large fields. For 15 MV beam, the differences are even larger for small fields but reduce significantly for large field sizes (>5×5cm2). Conclusion: It is concluded that PB based algorithms should be avoided for dose calculation in small fields with low‐Z inhomogeneities. The MC derived kernel based algorithms such as CC and AAA produce similar results to each other within ±10% and should be preferred for patient treatment in IMRT/SBRT. This study raises serious concerns in dosimetric variability in lung cancers possibly impacting the clinical trials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024806005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024806005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2962908

DO - 10.1118/1.2962908

M3 - Article

VL - 35

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -