Pencil Beam and Collapsed Cone Algorithm Calculations for a Lung-Type Volume Using Ct and the Omp Treatment Planning System

Topics: Percent difference, Monte Carlo method, Measurement Pages: 21 (7815 words) Published: May 17, 2012
Pencil Beam and Collapsed Cone Algorithm Calculations for a Lung-type Volume Using CT and the OMP Treatment Planning System Methods
Measurements have been carried out in both phantom and a specifically designed phantom which simulated human lung volume. Samples were taken from the Lung Planning CT images for 15 patients using the Oncentra Masterplan OMP Treatment Planning System. The X-axis was, following convention, taken to be horizontal, and the Y-axis to be vertical; accordingly, abscissa and ordinate distances to the skin, heart and the lungs were measured (see figure 8). Figures 4 and 5 show typical CT images for a patient’s lungs, while Tables 1 and 2 give the beam information and dose information for typical patients. The X-ray images were taken using CT-SIM: Philips Brilliance Big Bore. A print out of the planning CT images was produced by the Oncentra Masterplan OMP treatment Planning system (see section 3.3).

Figure 4: Lungs Image for Patient by CT-SIM: Philips Brilliance Big Bore Beam Information|
Beam| 1ANT| 2RPO| 3RPO| 4ARO|
Nom. Acc. Pot.(MV or MeV)| 6| 6| 6| 6|
FX (cm)| 8.2| 8.2| 8.6| 8.6|
FY (cm)| 9.4| 10.6| 8.2| 8.6|
SSD (cm)| 87.2| 86.8| 85.6| 84.7|
Gantry (degrees)| 0| 223| 267| 320|
Wedge Angle(degrees)| 60/60| 60/33| 60/25| |
Dose Information: Absolute dose 5500 cGy (275 cGy / fraction)| Number of Fraction| 20| 20| 20| 20|
MU or min / Fraction| IN = 424.77OUT = 0| IN = 185.78OUT = 85.22| IN = 92.85OUT = 69.34| 16.39| Table 1: Beam Information and Dose Information for Patient

Figure 5: Lungs Image for Patient by CT-SIM: Philips Brilliance Big Bore

Beam Information|
Nom. Acc. Pot.(MV or MeV)| 6| 6| 6| 6|
FX (cm)| 10.6| 10.1| 9.7| 14.2|
FY (cm)| 9.7| 14.3| 11| 10.1|
SSD (cm)| 86.3| 87.2| 87.2| 82.4|
Gantry (degrees)| 120| 0| 0| 60|
Wedge Angle(degrees)| 60/25| 60/28| 60/60| 60/9|
Dose Information: Absolute dose 4000 cGy (267 cGy / fraction)| Number of Fraction| 15| 15| 15| 15|
MU or min / Fraction| IN = 2291.07OUT = 1711.09| IN = 1277.72OUT = 793.65| IN = 1974.08OUT = 0| IN = 476.08OUT = 1301.50| Table 2: Beam Information and Dose Information for Patient
Design of multi-block chest phantoms
The first phantom was introduced to the experiment as shown in figure 7, in order to reduce the uncertainty within the results and to increase the accuracy all that because of the very inhomogeneous lung region that may led to poor dose distribution.

Figure 7: for Design 1 of the Multiblock phantom (first phantom) The specially designed phantom
Using measurements taken from 15 patients, who had previously been scheduled for lung radiotherapy, a second phantom consisting of multi-block components was designed. A multi-block phantom is essentially a phantom containing a number of blocks with different shapes and materials used to form an approximate cross-section of the patient. This facilitates taking measurements on the phantom volume to confirm the prescribed dose. A plan for the phantom was designed using similar field parameters, for example collimator settings, beam weightings, wedge fractions, and gantry angles as the clinical plan. The two lungs are presented in a lateral position, as shown in Figure 8 the heart is represented in the middle to reflect the correct anatomy and the lighter color in both Figures 7 and 8 represent the lungs.

Figure 8: Design 2 for the Multiblock phantom (second phantom), where (S-L) is skin and lung, and (L-H) is lung and heart. Table 3 shows the average distance between the skin, lungs and heart of the patient from the X-ray for the X and Y axes. The table also illustrates the maximum and minimum values for the X and Y axes, as well as the range of maximum and minimum values. Figure 8 illustrates the distance for X and Y axes between the skin, lungs and heart in the Multi-Block...

References: [1] Ang, K. & Garden, A. S. 2006. Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancers: Indications and Techniques. United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
[2] Arnfield, MR, CH Siantar, J
[3] Aspradakis, M., McCallum, H. M. and Wilson, N. 2006. Dosimetric and Treatment Planning Considerations for Radiotheraphy of the Chest Wall. The British Journal of Radiology, 79 (2006), 828-836
[4] Chetty, IJ, B
[5] Chin, L. & Regine, W. 2008. Principles and Practice of Stereotactic Radiosurgery. United States: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
[6] Cox, J
[7] Fotina, Winkler, Kunzler, Reiterer, Simmat and Georg (2009). Advanced Kernel Methods VS. Monte Carlo-based Dose Calculation for High Energy Photon Beams. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 93 (2009) 645-653
[8] Hasenbalg, F., Neuenschwander, H., Mini, R
[9] Khan, F. 2010. The Physics of Radiation Therapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer Business
[10] Krieger, T
[11] Li, A. (2011). Adaptive Radiation Therapy. United States: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
[12] McGarry, C., O’Toole, M
[13] Papanikolaou, N. and Stathakis, S. 2009. Dose-calculation Algorithms in the Context of Inhomogeneity Corrections for High energy Photon Beams. Texas: University of Texas Health Sciences Center
[14] Rong, Y
[15] Schmitter, M. (2007). The Study and Analysis of Heterogeneity Correction Algorithms Used in the Delivery of Step and Shoot and Sliding Window IMRT. United States: ProQuest
[16] Schulz, R
[17] Small, W. 2008. Combining Targeted Biological Agents with Radiotherapy: Current Status and Future Directions. United States: Demos Medical Publishing, LLC.
[18] Spirydovich, S. 2006. Evaluation of Dose Distribution for Targets Near Inhomogeneities in Photon Beam Radiation Therapy. United States: ProQuest Information and Learning Company
[19] Tyagi, N., A
[20] Vanderstraeten, B., W. Duthoy, W. De Gersem, W. De Neve, and H. Thierens. 2006. [18f] Fluro-deoxy-glucose Positron Emission Tomography ([18F]FDG-PET)
[21] Yue, X
[22] Ahnesjo, A. 1989. Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Medical Physics. 16(4): 577-592.
[23] Thomas, S. 2009. Treatment planning algorithms: Photon and Electron calculations. Scope, 18(1). pp. 21-27.
[24] Buzdar, S. A., Afzal, M. and Todd-Pokropek, A. 2010. Comparison of pencil beam and collapsed cone algorithms, in radiotherapy treatment planning for 6 and 10 mv photon. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 22(3), 152:154.
[25] Dobler, B. et al. 2006. Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms. Radiation Oncology. 1(45).
[29] Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Murray, T., Xu, J. and Thun, M. J., 2007. Cancer Statistics, 2007. CA: A Cancer Journal for clinicians. 57:43-66
[30] Shiu, A, S., Hogstrom, K, R
[37] A Aspradakis, M. M., Morrison, R. H., Richmond, N. D. & Steele, A., 2003. Experimental verification of convolution/superposition photon dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine and Biology, (48)17. pp. 2873-2893.
[38] Almond, P. et al., 1999. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Journal of Medical Physics, 26(9). pp. 1847-1870.
[39] Fippel, M., 1999. Fast Monte Carlo dose calculations for photon beams based on the vmc electron algorithm Medical Physics, 26. pp. 1466–75.
[40] Haryanto, F., Fippel, M., Bakai, A. et al., 2004. Study on the tongue and groove effect of the Elekta multileaf collimator using Monte Carlo simulation and film dosimetry. Strahlenther Onkol, 180. pp. 57–61.
[41] Heintz, B., Hammond, D., Cavanaugh, D. & Rosencranz, D., 2006. SU‐FF‐T‐09: A Comparison of MatriXX, MapCHECK and Film for IMRT QA: Limitations of 2D Electronic Systems. Medical Physics, 33(6). pp. 2052-2054.
[42] Korreman, S. S., Pedersen, A. N., Nottrup, T. J., Specht, L. & Nystrom, H., 2005. Breathing adapted radiotherapy for breast cancer: comparison of free breathing gating with the breath-hold technique. Radiother Oncol, 76. pp. 311–8.
[43] Muir, B. R. & Rogers, D. W. O., 2010. Monte Carlo calculations of kQ, the beam quality conversion factor. Medical Physics, 37. pp. 5939-5950.
[44] Pallotta, S., Marrazzo, L
[45] Pedersen, A. N., Korreman, S., Nystrom, H. & Specht, L., 2004. Breathing adapted radiotherapy of breast cancer: reduction of cardiac and pulmonary doses using voluntary inspiration breathhold. Radiother Oncol, 72. pp. 53–60.
[47] White, D.R., Martin, R.J. & Darlison, R., 1977. Epoxy resin based tissue substitutes. The British Journal of Radiology, 50(599). pp. 814–821.
[48] Wilkinson, M. & Aspradakis, M.M., 2004. A study of electronic compensation methods in breast radiotherapy planning. In: IPEM Annual Scientific Meeting. York, UK: IPEM.
Radiology, 2002. 75: p. 56–58.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Lung Cancer: Causes and Treatment Essay
  • Essay on Types of planning
  • Types of Planning Essay
  • Volume and Right Circular Cone Essay
  • Lungs: Lung Volumes and Lung Capacity Essay
  • Lung: Respiratory System and Lungs Essay
  • Differentiation: Volume and Right Circular Cone Essay
  • Treatment Planning Case Study Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free