Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation. (September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pacaci, P.; Cebe, M.S.; Mabhouti, H.; Codel, G.; Serin, E.; Sanli, E.; Doyuran, M.; Kucukmorkoc, E.; Altinok, A.; Canoglu, D.; Kucuk, N.; Acar, H.; Caglar, H.
• Is Part Of: Physica medica. Volume 32(2016)Supplement 3
• Page Start: 247
• Publication Date: 2016-09
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Imagerie médicale -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Rayons X -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Physique -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.07.523
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-1797

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: In this study, dosimetric comparison of field in field (FIF) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques used for treatment of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) were made. The dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning system (TPS) for Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms in predicting PTV and OAR doses was also investigated. Methods: Two different treatment planning techniques of left-sided breast cancer were generated for rando phantom. FIF and IMRT plans were compared for doses in PTV and OAR volumes including ipsilateral lung, heart, left ascending coronary artery, contralateral lung and the contralateral breast. PTV and OARs doses and homogeneity and conformality indexes were compared between two techniques. The accuracy of TPS dose calculation algorithms was tested by comparing PTV and OAR doses measured by thermoluminescent dosimetry with the dose calculated by the TPS using AAA and AXB for both techniques. Results: IMRT plans had better conformality and homogeneity indexes than FIF technique and it spared OARs better than FIF. While both algorithms overestimated PTV doses they underestimated all OAR doses. For IMRT plan, PTV doses, overestimation up to 2.5% was seen with AAA algorithm but it decreased to 1.8% when AXB algorithm was used. Based on the results of the anthropomorphic measurements for OAR doses, underestimation greater than 7% is possible by the AAA. The results from the AXB are much better than the AAA algorithm. However, underestimations of 4.8% were found in some of the points even for AXB. For FIF plan, similar trend was seen for PTV and OARs doses in both algorithm. Conclusions: When using the Eclipse TPS for breast cancer, AXB the should be used instead of the AAA algorithm, bearing in mind that the AXB may still underestimate all OAR doses.