Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for Eclipse, PCRT3D, and Monaco Treatment Planning Systems Using IAEA TPS commissioning tests in a Heterogeneous Phantom

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 radiotherapy oncology department, cancer research centre, Tehran university of medical sciences,Tehran,Iran

3 1. Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Radiotherapy Oncology Research Centre, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Radiotherapy Oncology Research Centre, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

5 Department of Medical Physics, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran


Introduction: The accuracy of dose calculation algorithm (DCA) is highly considered in the radiotherapy sequences. This study aims at assessing the accuracy of five dose calculation algorithms in tissue inhomogeneity corrections, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency TEC-DOC 1583.
Material and Methods: A heterogeneous phantom was scanned using computed tomography and tests were planned on three-dimensional treatment planning systems (3D TPSs) based on IAEA TEC-DOC 1583.Doseswere measured for 6- and 18-MV photon beams with ion chambers and then the deviation between measured and calculated TPS doses were reported. The evaluated five DCAs include Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm employed by Monaco, pencil beam convolution (PBC) and anisotropic analytical algorithms (AAA) employed by Eclipse and Superposition (SP), and Clarkson algorithms employed by PCRT3D TPSs.
Results: In Clarkson algorithm, low and high energy photons indicated 7.1% and 14.8% deviations out of agreement criteria, respectively. The SP, AAA, and PBC algorithms indicated 0.9%, 7.4%, and 13.8% for low energy photon and 9.5%, 21.3%, and 23.2% for high energy photon deviations out of agreement criteria, respectively. However, MC algorithm showed 1.8% and less than 1% deviations at high and low energy photons, respectively.
Conclusion: The DCAs had different levels of accuracy in TPSs. Some simple DCAs, such as Clarkson, showed large deviations in some cases. Therefore, the transition to more advanced algorithms, such as MC would be desirable, particularly for the calculation in the presence of inhomogeneity or high energy beams.


Main Subjects

  1. References


    1. Li J, Zhang T. Implementation of convolution/superposition model of photon dose calculation. In7th Asian-Pacific Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering. 2008 ; 442-446.
    2. Wieslander E. Verification of dose calculation algorithms in treatment planning systems for external radiation therapy: a Monte Carlo approach. Lund University; 2006.
    3. Robinson D. Inhomogeneity correction and the analytic anisotropic algorithm. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2008 Mar;9(2):112-22.
    4. Farhood B, Bahreyni Toossi MT, Soleymanifard S. Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of TiGRT Treatment Planning System for Physical Wedged fields in Radiotherapy. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2016 Sep 1;13(3):146-53.
    5. Scott JA. Photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues ICRU report 46. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, 1992, $40.00. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1993 Jan 1;34(1):171.
    6. Cheng CW, Das IJ, Tang W, Chang S, Tsai JS, Ceberg C, et al. Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1997 Jul;38(4):835-42.
    7. Paelinck L, Reynaert N, Thierens H, De Neve W, De Wagter C. Experimental verification of lung dose with radiochromic film: comparison with Monte Carlo simulations and commercially available treatment planning systems. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Apr 20;50(9):2055.
    8. Mesbahi A, Zergoug I. Dose calculations for lung inhomogeneity in high-energy photon beams and small beamlets: a comparison between XiO and TiGRT treatment planning systems and MCNPX Monte Carlo code. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2015 Sep 1;12(3):167-77.
    9. El-Khatib EE, Evans M, Pla M, Cunningham JR. Evaluation of lung dose correction methods for photon irradiations of thorax phantoms. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 1989 Oct 1;17(4):871-8.
    10. Ekstrand KE, Barnes WH. Pitfalls in the use of high energy x-rays to treat tumors in the lung: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 18, No. 1, January 1990, pp. 249–252. Medical Dosimetry. 1990 Jan 1;15(4):239.
    11. Garcı́a-Vicente F, Miñambres Á, Jerez I, Modolell I, Pérez L, Torres JJ. Experimental validation tests of fast Fourier transform convolution and multigrid superposition algorithms for dose calculation in low-density media. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2003 May 1;67(2):239-49.
    12. Van Esch A, Tillikainen L, Pyykkonen J, Tenhunen M, Helminen H, Siljamäki S, et al. Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation. Medical physics. 2006 Nov;33(11):4130-48.
    13. Knoos T, Ceberg C, Weber L, Nilsson P. The dosimetric verification of a pencil beam based treatment planning system. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1994 Oct;39(10):1609.
    14. Aspradakis MM, Morrison RH, Richmond ND, Steele A. Experimental verification of convolution/superposition photon dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2003 Aug 20;48(17):2873.
    15. Kappas C, Rosenwald JC. Quality control of inhomogeneity correction algorithms used in treatment planning systems. International Journal of Radiation Oncology• Biology• Physics. 1995 Jun 15;32(3):847-58.
    16. Venselaar J, Welleweerd H. Application of a test package in an intercomparison of the photon dose calculation performance of treatment planning systems used in a clinical setting. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2001 Aug 1;60(2):203-13.
    17. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Duch MA, Weber L, Ginjaume M, Eudaldo T, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in phantoms with lung equivalent heterogeneities under conditions of lateral electronic disequilibrium: dose calculation algorithms in lung heterogeneities. Medical physics. 2004 Oct;31(10):2899-911.
    18. Khan FM ,Gibbons JP. Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2014.
    19. I. A. E. Agency. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer: IAEA Technical Report Series 430. IAEA Vienna. 2003.
    20. TecDoc IA. 1583: commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2008.
    21. Asnaashari K, Nodehi MR, Mahdavi SR, Gholami S, Khosravi HR. Dosimetric comparison of different inhomogeneity correction algorithms for external photon beam dose calculations. Journal of Medical Physics/Association of Medical Physicists of India. 2013 Apr;38(2):74.
    22. Miften M, Wiesmeyer M, Kapur A, Ma CM. Comparison of RTP dose distributions in heterogeneous phantoms with the BEAM Monte Carlo simulation system. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2001 Dec;2(1):21-31.
    23. Knöös T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, Brink C, Fogliata A, Albers D, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2006 Oct 24;51(22):5785.
    24. Golestani A, Houshyari M, Mostaar A, Arfaie AJ. Evaluation of dose calculation algorithms of Isogray treatment planning system using measurement in heterogeneous phantom. Reports of Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2015;2(3).
    25. Ding W, Johnston PN, Wong TP, Bubb IF. Investigation of photon beam models in heterogeneous media of modern radiotherapy. Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2004 Jun 1;27(2):39.
    26. Rutonjski L, Petrović B, Baucal M, Teodorović M, Čudić O, Gershkevitsh E, et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems in Serbia: national audit. Radiation Oncology. 2012 Dec;7(1):155.
    27. Yorke E, Harisiadis L, Wessels B, Aghdam H, Altemus R. Dosimetric considerations in radiation therapy of coin lesions of the lung. International Journal of Radiation Oncology• Biology• Physics. 1996 Jan 15;34(2):481-7.
    28. Klein EE, Morrison A, Purdy JA, Graham MV, Matthews J. A volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 and 18 MV photons. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1997 Mar;37(5):1163-70.
    29. Woon YL, Heng SP, Wong JH, Ung NM. Comparison of selected dose calculation algorithms in radiotherapy treatment planning for tissues with inhomogeneities. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series 2016 ; 694(1): 012024.
    30. Zhuang T, Djemil T, Qi P, Magnelli A, Stephans K, Videtic G, et al. Dose calculation differences between Monte Carlo and pencil beam depend on the tumor locations and volumes for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2013;14(2):38-51.
    31. Gershkevitsh E, Schmidt R, Velez G, Miller D, Korf E, Yip F, et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Results of IAEA pilot study. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2008 Dec 1;89(3):338-46.
    32. Alam R, Ibbott GS, Pourang R, Nath R. Application of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 23 test package for comparison of two treatment planning systems for photon external beam radiotherapy. Medical physics. 1997;24(12):2043-54.
    33. Schiefer H, Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Cozzi L, Seelentag WW, Born E, et al. The Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantom. Medical physics. 2010 Aug;37(8):4424-31.
    34. Asnaashari K, Gholami SO, Khosravi HR. Lessons learnt from errors in radiotherapy centers. Int J Radiat Res. 2014 Oct 1;12(4):361-7.


Volume 16, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
July and August 2019
Pages 285-293
  • Receive Date: 11 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 03 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 24 November 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 July 2019