Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Vikraman, S. ♦ Ramu, M. ♦ Karrthick, Kp ♦ Rajesh, T. ♦ Senniandavar, V. ♦ Sambasivaselli, R. ♦ Maragathaveni, S. ♦ Dhivya, N. ♦ Tejinder, K. ♦ Manigandan, D. ♦ Muthukumaran, M.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ♦ RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ♦ ACCURACY ♦ ALGORITHMS ♦ COMPASS DETECTOR ♦ DOSIMETRY ♦ ESOPHAGUS ♦ LINEAR ACCELERATORS ♦ LUNGS ♦ MONTE CARLO METHOD ♦ OPTIMIZATION ♦ PATIENTS ♦ RADIATION DOSES ♦ RADIOTHERAPY ♦ SPINAL CORD ♦ VALIDATION ♦ VERIFICATION
Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the advent of COMPASS 3D dosimetry as a routine pre treatment verification tool with commercially available CMS Monaco and Oncentra Masterplan planning system. Methods: Twenty esophagus patients were selected for this study. All these patients underwent radical VMAT treatment in Elekta Linac and plans were generated in Monaco v5.0 with MonteCarlo(MC) dose calculation algorithm. COMPASS 3D dosimetry comprises an advanced dose calculation algorithm of collapsed cone convolution(CCC). To validate CCC algorithm in COMPASS, The DICOM RT Plans generated using Monaco MC algorithm were transferred to Oncentra Masterplan v4.3 TPS. Only final dose calculations were performed using CCC algorithm with out optimization in Masterplan planning system. It is proven that MC algorithm is an accurate algorithm and obvious that there will be a difference with MC and CCC algorithms. Hence CCC in COMPASS should be validated with other commercially available CCC algorithm. To use the CCC as pretreatment verification tool with reference to MC generated treatment plans, CCC in OMP and CCC in COMPASS were validated using dose volume based indices such as D98, D95 for target volumes and OAR doses. Results: The point doses for open beams were observed <1% with reference to Monaco MC algorithms. Comparisons of CCC(OMP) Vs CCC(COMPASS) showed a mean difference of 1.82%±1.12SD and 1.65%±0.67SD for D98 and D95 respectively for Target coverage. Maximum point dose of −2.15%±0.60SD difference was observed in target volume. The mean lung dose of −2.68%±1.67SD was noticed between OMP and COMPASS. The maximum point doses for spinal cord were −1.82%±0.287SD. Conclusion: In this study, the accuracy of CCC algorithm in COMPASS 3D dosimetry was validated by compared with CCC algorithm in OMP TPS. Dose calculation in COMPASS is feasible within < 2% in comparison with commercially available TPS algorithms.
ISSN 00942405
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2015-06-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Medical Physics
Volume Number 42
Issue Number 6


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab