Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
7217793
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Dosimetric comparison of iPlan (R) Pencil Beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) plans of intracranial arteriovenous malformations
Author(s)
Menon, SV; Paramu, R; Bhasi, S; Gopalakrishnan, Z; Bhaskaran, S; Nair, RK; ,
Year
2020
Is Peer Reviewed?
1
Journal
Medical Dosimetry
ISSN:
0958-3947
Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Location
NEW YORK
Volume
45
Issue
3
Page Numbers
225-234
Language
English
PMID
32001069
DOI
10.1016/j.meddos.2019.12.006
Web of Science Id
WOS:000556597500008
Abstract
Stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) is a hypofractionated treatment where accurate dose calculation is of prime importance. The accuracy of the dose calculation depends on the treatment planning algorithm. This study is a retrospective dosimetric comparison of iPlan (R) Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) algorithms in SRS/SRT plans of cranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). PB plans of 60 AVM patients who were already treated using 6 MV photons from a linear accelerator were selected and divided into 2 groups. Group-I consists of 30 patients who have undergone embolization procedure with high density Onyx (R) prior to radiosurgery whereas Group-II had 30 patients who did not have embolization. These plans were recalculated with MC algorithm while keeping parameters like beam orientation, multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, MLC margin, prescription dose, and monitor units constant. Several treatment coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk, and integral dose were used for comparing the 2 algorithms. The isodose distribution generated by the 2 algorithms was also compared with gamma analysis using 1%/1 mm criterion. The difference between the 2 groups as well as the differences in dose calculation by PB and MC algorithms were tested for significance using independent t-test and paired t-test respectively at 5% level of significance. The results of the independent t-test showed that there is no significant difference between the Group-I and Group-II patients for PB as well as MC algorithm due to the presence of high density embolization material. However, results of the paired t-test showed that the differences between the PB and MC algorithms were significant for several parameters analyzed in both groups of patients. The gamma analysis results also showed differences in the dose calculated by the 2 algorithms especially in the low dose regions. The significant differences between the 2 algorithms are probably due to the incorrect representation of the loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium and lateral broadening of small photon beams by PB algorithm. MC algorithms are generally considered not essential for dose calculations for target volumes located in the brain. This study demonstrates PB algorithm may not be sufficiently accurate to predict dose distributions for small fields where there is loss of LCPE. The lateral broadening due to the loss of LCPE as predicted by the MC algorithm could be the main reason for significant differences in the parameters compared. Hence, an accurate MC algorithm if available may prove valuable for intracranial SRS treatment planning of such benign lesions where the long life expectancy of patients makes accurate dosimetry critical. (C) 2019 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity