TH‐E‐230A‐06: Comparison of Correction and Model Based Dose Algorithms in Lung Cancer Retrospective Dose Recalculation and Treatment Outcome Evaluation

E. Acosta, D. Mcshan, F. Kong, B. Fraass, I. Chetty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a systematic comparison of the Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and equivalent path length (EPL)‐based dose calculation algorithms for the purposes of outcomes modeling in lung cancer treatment planning. Methods: Several treatment plans (originally planned using EPL) from a large database of patients treated on a lung dose escalation protocol were retrospectively recalculated using MC and CS. Doses were computed in the homogeneous (unit‐density) and heterogeneous geometries; homogeneous calculations were used to elicit differences in the beam models To evaluate algorithmic differences due to heterogeneity effects, beam model differences were minimized by adjusting beam weights in the homogeneous plans to achieve the same prescribed dose with each algorithm. These beam weights were then applied to the heterogeneous geometries. Absolute dose distributions were compared using: color‐wash dose difference displays, isodose lines, EUD (for the target) and mean lung dose (MLD) and NTCP (for the normal lungs). Results: For the target, MC and CS‐computed EUDs were in good agreement for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, with maximum dose differences of 1.2 Gy noted. Differences between EPL and MC (or CS) were generally much larger, in the heterogeneous plans extending up to 6 Gy. Differences in MLD computed with MC and CS ranged between 2% and 15% in the heterogeneous plans. These differences were similar in the corresponding homogeneous geometries, illustrating the importance of beam model disparities. For EPL, differences in the MLD and NTCP (relative to MC or CS) were much larger in the heterogeneous plans indicating systematic differences in the normal lung dose prediction. Conclusion: Evidence thus far is suggestive that discrepancies in dose computed with EPL and MC (or CS) will lead to differences in correlations of dose with outcome with respect to the target as well as normal tissue complications (radiation induced pneumonitis) and calculated NTCP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006

Fingerprint

Lung Neoplasms
Lung
Radiation Pneumonitis
Weights and Measures
Databases
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

TH‐E‐230A‐06 : Comparison of Correction and Model Based Dose Algorithms in Lung Cancer Retrospective Dose Recalculation and Treatment Outcome Evaluation. / Acosta, E.; Mcshan, D.; Kong, F.; Fraass, B.; Chetty, I.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 01.01.2006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4ea065fa7ac949e7877856c2505246aa,
title = "TH‐E‐230A‐06: Comparison of Correction and Model Based Dose Algorithms in Lung Cancer Retrospective Dose Recalculation and Treatment Outcome Evaluation",
abstract = "Purpose: To perform a systematic comparison of the Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and equivalent path length (EPL)‐based dose calculation algorithms for the purposes of outcomes modeling in lung cancer treatment planning. Methods: Several treatment plans (originally planned using EPL) from a large database of patients treated on a lung dose escalation protocol were retrospectively recalculated using MC and CS. Doses were computed in the homogeneous (unit‐density) and heterogeneous geometries; homogeneous calculations were used to elicit differences in the beam models To evaluate algorithmic differences due to heterogeneity effects, beam model differences were minimized by adjusting beam weights in the homogeneous plans to achieve the same prescribed dose with each algorithm. These beam weights were then applied to the heterogeneous geometries. Absolute dose distributions were compared using: color‐wash dose difference displays, isodose lines, EUD (for the target) and mean lung dose (MLD) and NTCP (for the normal lungs). Results: For the target, MC and CS‐computed EUDs were in good agreement for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, with maximum dose differences of 1.2 Gy noted. Differences between EPL and MC (or CS) were generally much larger, in the heterogeneous plans extending up to 6 Gy. Differences in MLD computed with MC and CS ranged between 2{\%} and 15{\%} in the heterogeneous plans. These differences were similar in the corresponding homogeneous geometries, illustrating the importance of beam model disparities. For EPL, differences in the MLD and NTCP (relative to MC or CS) were much larger in the heterogeneous plans indicating systematic differences in the normal lung dose prediction. Conclusion: Evidence thus far is suggestive that discrepancies in dose computed with EPL and MC (or CS) will lead to differences in correlations of dose with outcome with respect to the target as well as normal tissue complications (radiation induced pneumonitis) and calculated NTCP.",
author = "E. Acosta and D. Mcshan and F. Kong and B. Fraass and I. Chetty",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.2241968",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TH‐E‐230A‐06

T2 - Comparison of Correction and Model Based Dose Algorithms in Lung Cancer Retrospective Dose Recalculation and Treatment Outcome Evaluation

AU - Acosta, E.

AU - Mcshan, D.

AU - Kong, F.

AU - Fraass, B.

AU - Chetty, I.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To perform a systematic comparison of the Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and equivalent path length (EPL)‐based dose calculation algorithms for the purposes of outcomes modeling in lung cancer treatment planning. Methods: Several treatment plans (originally planned using EPL) from a large database of patients treated on a lung dose escalation protocol were retrospectively recalculated using MC and CS. Doses were computed in the homogeneous (unit‐density) and heterogeneous geometries; homogeneous calculations were used to elicit differences in the beam models To evaluate algorithmic differences due to heterogeneity effects, beam model differences were minimized by adjusting beam weights in the homogeneous plans to achieve the same prescribed dose with each algorithm. These beam weights were then applied to the heterogeneous geometries. Absolute dose distributions were compared using: color‐wash dose difference displays, isodose lines, EUD (for the target) and mean lung dose (MLD) and NTCP (for the normal lungs). Results: For the target, MC and CS‐computed EUDs were in good agreement for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, with maximum dose differences of 1.2 Gy noted. Differences between EPL and MC (or CS) were generally much larger, in the heterogeneous plans extending up to 6 Gy. Differences in MLD computed with MC and CS ranged between 2% and 15% in the heterogeneous plans. These differences were similar in the corresponding homogeneous geometries, illustrating the importance of beam model disparities. For EPL, differences in the MLD and NTCP (relative to MC or CS) were much larger in the heterogeneous plans indicating systematic differences in the normal lung dose prediction. Conclusion: Evidence thus far is suggestive that discrepancies in dose computed with EPL and MC (or CS) will lead to differences in correlations of dose with outcome with respect to the target as well as normal tissue complications (radiation induced pneumonitis) and calculated NTCP.

AB - Purpose: To perform a systematic comparison of the Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and equivalent path length (EPL)‐based dose calculation algorithms for the purposes of outcomes modeling in lung cancer treatment planning. Methods: Several treatment plans (originally planned using EPL) from a large database of patients treated on a lung dose escalation protocol were retrospectively recalculated using MC and CS. Doses were computed in the homogeneous (unit‐density) and heterogeneous geometries; homogeneous calculations were used to elicit differences in the beam models To evaluate algorithmic differences due to heterogeneity effects, beam model differences were minimized by adjusting beam weights in the homogeneous plans to achieve the same prescribed dose with each algorithm. These beam weights were then applied to the heterogeneous geometries. Absolute dose distributions were compared using: color‐wash dose difference displays, isodose lines, EUD (for the target) and mean lung dose (MLD) and NTCP (for the normal lungs). Results: For the target, MC and CS‐computed EUDs were in good agreement for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, with maximum dose differences of 1.2 Gy noted. Differences between EPL and MC (or CS) were generally much larger, in the heterogeneous plans extending up to 6 Gy. Differences in MLD computed with MC and CS ranged between 2% and 15% in the heterogeneous plans. These differences were similar in the corresponding homogeneous geometries, illustrating the importance of beam model disparities. For EPL, differences in the MLD and NTCP (relative to MC or CS) were much larger in the heterogeneous plans indicating systematic differences in the normal lung dose prediction. Conclusion: Evidence thus far is suggestive that discrepancies in dose computed with EPL and MC (or CS) will lead to differences in correlations of dose with outcome with respect to the target as well as normal tissue complications (radiation induced pneumonitis) and calculated NTCP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024806864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024806864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2241968

DO - 10.1118/1.2241968

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024806864

VL - 33

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -