Comparison of Dose Distributions Calculated by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and Pencil Beam Convolution Algorithm at Tumors Located in Liver Dome Site.
- Author:
Byung Do PARK
1
;
Sang Hoon JUNG
;
Sung Ho PARK
;
Jeong Won KWAK
;
Jong Hoon KIM
;
Sang Min YOON
;
Seung Do AHN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jwkwak0301@gmail.com, sanghoon.jung@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Liver Dome;
Lesion coverage factor (CVF);
Heterogeneity;
Pencil Beam Convolution;
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm
- MeSH:
Humans;
Kidney;
Liver;
Liver Neoplasms;
Organothiophosphorus Compounds;
Population Characteristics;
Prescriptions
- From:Korean Journal of Medical Physics
2012;23(2):106-113
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variation of radiation dose distribution for liver tumor located in liver dome and for the interest organs(normal liver, kidney, stomach) with the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm versus anisotropic Analyticalal algorithm (AAA) of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, The target volumes from 20 liver cancer patients were used to create treatment plans. Treatment plans for 10 patients were performed in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) plan and others were performed in 3 Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) plan. dose calculation was recalculated by AAA algorithm after dose calculation was performed by PBC algorithm for 20 patients. Plans were optimized to 100% of the PTV by the Prescription Isodose in Dose Calculation with the PBC algorithm. Plans were recalculated with the AAA, retaining identical beam arrangements, monitor units, field weighting and collimator condition. In this study, Total PTV was to be statistically significant (SRS: p=0.018, 3DCRT: p=0.006) between PBC and AAA algorithm. and in the case of PTV, ITV in liver dome, plans for 3DCRT were to be statistically significant respectively (p=0.013, p=0.024). normal liver and kidney were to be statistically significant (p=0.009, p=0.037). For the predictive index of dose variation, CVF ratio was to be statistically significant for PTV in the liver dome versus PTV (SRS r=0.684, 3DCRT r=0.732, p<0.01) and CVF ratio for Tumor size was to be statistically significant (SRS r=-0.193, p=0.017, 3DCRT r=0.237, p=0.023).
