Dosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcsDosimetric validation for an automatic brain metastases planning software using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arcs.
An automatic brain-metastases planning (ABMP) software has been installed in our institution. It is dedicated for treating multiple brain metastases with radiosurgery on linear accelerators (linacs) using a single-setup isocenter with noncoplanar dynamic conformal arcs. This study is to validate the calculated absolute dose and dose distribution of ABMP. Three types of measurements were performed to validate the planning software: 1, dual micro ion chambers were used with an acrylic phantom to measure the absolute dose; 2, a 3D cylindrical phantom with dual diode array was used to evaluate 2D dose distribution and point dose for smaller targets; and 3, a 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific phantom filled with polymer gels was used to evaluate the accuracy of 3D dose distribution and radia-tion delivery. Micro chamber measurement of two targets (volumes of 1.2 cc and 0.9 cc, respectively) showed that the percentage differences of the absolute dose at both targets were less than 1%. Averaged GI passing rate of five different plans measured with the diode array phantom was above 98%, using criteria of 3% dose difference, 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA), and 10% low-dose threshold. 3D gel phantom measurement results demonstrated a 3D displacement of nine targets of 0.7 ± 0.4 mm (range 0.2 ~ 1.1 mm). The averaged two-dimensional (2D) GI passing rate for several region of interests (ROI) on axial slices that encompass each one of the nine targets was above 98% (5% dose difference, 2 mm DTA, and 10% low-dose threshold). Measured D95, the minimum dose that covers 95% of the target volume, of the nine targets was 0.7% less than the calculated D95. Three different types of dosimetric verification methods were used and proved the dose calculation of the new automatic brain metastases planning (ABMP) software was clinical acceptable. The 3D pseudo-in vivo patient-specific gel phantom test also served as an end-to-end test for validating not only the dose calculation, but the treatment delivery accuracy as well.
Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. haisong.liu@jefferson.edu.
Haisong
H
Liu
Jun
J
Li
Evangelos
E
Pappas
David
D
Andrews
James
J
Evans
Maria
M
Werner-Wasik
Yan
Y
Yu
Adam
A
Dicker
Wenyin
W
Shi
D000465:Algorithms; D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000556:secondary / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D016634:Radiosurgery / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods*; D012984:Software
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Sep 1;63(1):37-46
16111570
Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Jun;190(6):521-32
24715242
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jul;112(1):128-32
24997990
J Radiosurg SBRT. 2012;2(1):1-9
29296337
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Mar 7;55(5):R1-63
20150687
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Mar 7;48(5):N65-73
12696803
Med Phys. 2008 Oct;35(10):4640-8
18975710
J Neurooncol. 2010 Jan;96(1):45-68
19960227
Curr Oncol Rep. 2010 Jan;12(1):34-40
20425606
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Oct;44(10):2677-84
10533935
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Dec 1;78(5):1457-66
20207494
Med Phys. 2005 Jun;32(6):1513-20
16013707
Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):041711
24694131
Phys Med Biol. 2001 Mar;46(3):783-97
11277225
Med Phys. 2011 Dec;38(12):6513-27
22149834
Phys Med. 2013 Sep;29(5):453-60
23375524
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Nov 15;75(4):961-5
19857783
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):071725
23822429
Neurosurgery. 2014 Oct;75(4):409-17; discussion 417-8
24871143
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jan 1;76(1):296-302
19836151