Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 11, Number 3, 2006

Experimental and Monte Carlo evaluation of Eclipse treatment planning system for lung dose calculations

Asghar Mesbahi, David I. Thwaites, Andrew J. Reilly

Summary:

Background In this study the accuracy of a pencil beam based treatment planning system (TPS)was evaluated for lung dose calculations by comparison with measurement and the Monte Carlo (MC) method.
Aim In the current study we assessed the performance of the Eclipse treatment planning system in the thorax region by ionization chamber measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. We examined two analytic methods: modified Batho(MB) and equivalent tissue-air ratio “ETAR” methods for thorax region irradiations.
For Monte Carlo calculations in the thorax phantom, we modelled a Varian
Clinac 2100EX linac. After benchmarking our model with water phantom measurements we used this model for thorax phantom calculations.
Materials/Methods 8 and 15MV photon beams of Varian 21EX linac were used for irradiations. Using MANP4C Monte Carlo code, the geometry of the linac head was simulated. After commissioning “MC” beam models, lung doses were calculated by the Monte Carlo (MC) method. Irradiation cases were: (1) posterior fi elds of single
lung with fi eld sizes of 4×4 and 10×10cm2 (2) lateral fi elds of thorax with 4×4 and 10×10cm2 fi eld sizes.
Results TPS calculations involving ETAR and MB methods were in close agreement with Monte Carlo results and measurements for a 10×10 cm2 field size at both energies.
For a field size of 4×4cm2 the maximum differences in local dose between
TPS calculations and measurement were +33% (MB) and +28% (ETAR). Also,
they ignored lung dose reduction due to lateral electronic equilibrium for small
field size. Similar results would be expected for other TPSs implementing these algorithms. MC calculations were in excellent agreement with measurement,
showing local differences of no more than 2% for all measured points.
Conclusions Our study findings showed great differences between both analytical methods and measurements for 4×4cm2 field sizes for points in the lung. Our study recommends using the MC method for small-field lung dose calculations.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2006; 11(3) : 123-133

FULL TXT (PDF: 0,69MB)

« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2