Dosimetric Comparison and Plan Evaluation of Different Dose Computing Algorithms for Different Radiotherapy Techniques in Head and Neck Tumors

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Radiotherapy, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore, India, Department of Applied Physics, Karunya institute of technology and sciences, Coimbatore, India

2 Department of Applied Physics, Karunya institute of technology and sciences, Coimbatore, India.

3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fortis Hospital, Mohali, India.

4 Department of Radiotherapy, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore, India.

5 Department of Radiation oncology, Tawam Hospital, Abu Dhabhi, UAE.

6 Department of Radiotherapy, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore, India

7 Department of Community Medicine, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore, India


Introduction: The study aims to compare target coverage and critical structure dose difference between various dose computing algorithms with small segment dose calculation in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and large segment dose calculation in 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) treatment plan for Head and Neck (H&N) tumor.
Material and Methods: For the present study, thirty-eight H&N cancer patients were selected retrospectively. Twenty-seven patients were planned with IMRT plan using Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm and eleven patients with 3DCRT plan using Collapsed Cone/Superposition (CCS) algorithm. IMRT plan was recalculated with Pencil Beam (PB) and the 3DCRT plan was recalculated with MC and PB algorithms. An Independent student t-test was performed as a part of statistical analysis for dosimetric comparison of the p-value.
Results: In the IMRT plan, mean dose, Conformity Index (CI), D2%, D98%, and D50% showed a significant difference in p-values (p<0.05), but the critical structure did not have a significant difference in p-value between the MC and PB algorithms, except Planning Risk Volume (PRV) spine. In the 3DCRT plan, mean dose, CI, Homogeneity Index (HI), D98%, D50%,and all the critical structures showed no statistically significant p-values (p<0.05) between the CCS with MC and CCS with PB algorithms.
Conclusion: The study concludes that in the IMRT treatment technique, PB algorithms overestimate the dose compared to the MC algorithm, even in the head and neck treatment area. For 3DCRT treatment plans, CCS, MC, and PB algorithms showed no statistically significant differences between them. Moreover, this study ensured the accuracy of various dose calculation algorithms in H&N radiotherapy.


Main Subjects

  1. Vigneswaran N, Williams MD. Epidemiologic trends in head and neck cancer and aids in diagnosis. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics. 2014 May 1;26(2):123-41.
  2. Bugter O, van Iwaarden DL, Dronkers EA, de Herdt MJ, Wieringa MH, Verduijn GM, et al. Survival of patients with head and neck cancer with metachronous multiple primary tumors is surprisingly favorable. Head & neck. 2019 Jun;41(6):1648-55.
  3. Galbiatti AL, Padovani-Junior JA, Maníglia JV, Rodrigues CD, Pavarino ÉC, Goloni-Bertollo EM. Head and neck cancer: causes, prevention, and treatment. Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 2013;79:239-47.
  4. Cognetti DM, Weber RS, Lai SY. Head and neck cancer: an evolving treatment paradigm. Cancer. 2008 Oct 1;113(S7):1911-32.
  5. De Martino F, Clemente S, Graeff C, Palma G, Cella L. Dose calculation algorithms for external radiation therapy: An overview for practitioners. Applied Sciences. 2021 Jul 24;11(15):6806.
  6. Elcim Y, Dirican B, Yavas O. Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2018 Sep;19(5):616-24.
  7. 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.
  8. Kim SJ, Kim SK, Kim DH. Comparison of pencil-beam, collapsed-cone and Monte-Carlo algorithms in radiotherapy treatment planning for 6-MV photons. Journal of the Korean Physical Society. 2015 Jul;67(1):153-8.
  9. Kathirvel M, Subramani V, Subramanian VS, Swamy ST, Arun G, Kala S. Dosimetric comparison of head and neck cancer patients planned with multivendor volumetric modulated arc therapy technology. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2017 Jan 1;13(1):122.
  10. Dorje T. Limitation of pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm for photon dose calculation in inhomogeneous medium. J Cancer Treat Res. 2014;2(1):1-4.
  11. Knoos T, Ahnesjo A, Nilsson P, Weber L. Limitations of a pencil beam approach to photon dose calculations in lung tissue. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1995 Sep 1;40(9):1411.
  12. Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, DeMarco JJ, Ezzell G, Faddegon BA, et al. Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo‚Äźbased photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Medical physics. 2007 Dec;34(12):4818-53.
  13. Jabbari K. Review of fast Monte Carlo codes for dose calculation in radiation therapy treatment planning. Journal of medical signals and sensors. 2011 Jan;1(1):73.
  14. 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 1;39(10):1609.
  15. Ma CM, Li JS, Pawlicki T, Jiang SB, Deng J, Lee MC, et al. A Monte Carlo dose calculation tool for radiotherapy treatment planning. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2002 May 2;47(10):1671.
  16. Menzel HG. International commission on radiation units and measurements. Journal of the ICRU. 2014 Dec 1;14(2):1-2.
  17. Journal of the ICRU. Int J Radioact Mater Transp. 2003;14(1):5–
  18. Nithya L, Goel V, Sharma D, Vittal K, Marjara N. Dosimetric comparison of different planning techniques in left-sided whole-breast irradiation: A planning study. Journal of Medical Physics. 2020 Jul;45(3):148.
  19. Bosse C, Narayanasamy G, Saenz D, Myers P, Kirby N, Rasmussen K, et al. Dose calculation comparisons between three modern treatment planning systems. Journal of Medical Physics. 2020 Jul;45(3):143.
  20. Sresty NM, Raju AK, Reddy BN, Sahithya VC, Mohmd Y, Kumar GD, et al. Evaluation and validation of IBA I'MatriXX array for patient-specific quality assurance of TomoTherapy®. Journal of Medical Physics. 2019 Jul;44(3):222.
  21. Spezi E, Angelini AL, Romani F, Ferri A. Characterization of a 2D ion chamber array for the verification of radiotherapy treatments. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Jul 6;50(14):3361.
  22. Rastogi K, Sharma S, Gupta S, Agarwal N, Bhaskar S, Jain S. Dosimetric comparison of IMRT versus 3DCRT for post-mastectomy chest wall irradiation. Radiation oncology journal. 2018 Mar;36(1):71.
  23. Mostafa AA, Hussein AA, Galal M, El Shahat KM. The impact of dose calculation algorithm for SBRT lung cancer radiotherapy treatment. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2021 Sep 15.
  24. Benkahila K, Kharfi F, Boulakhssaim F, Khoudri S. Dosimetric Comparison of IMRT with 3D-CRT Regarding Their Contribution to the Treatment Plan Optimization Using Rando Phantom with a Realistic Lung Cancer Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2021;18(3):154-63.
  25. Benkahila K, Kharfi F, Boulakhssaim F, Khoudri S. IMRT versus 3D-CRT dosimetric comparison for the contribution in treatment plan optimization using Rando phantom with a realistic lung cancer radiotherapy treatment planning. Iran J Med Phys. 2020;
  26. Benkahila K, Kharfi F, Boulakhssaim F, Khoudri S. Dosimetric Comparison of IMRT with 3D-CRT Regarding Their Contribution to the Treatment Plan Optimization Using Rando Phantom with a Realistic Lung Cancer Radiotherapy Treatment Planning. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2021;18(3):154-63.
  27. Kavousi N, Nedaie HA, Gholami S, Esfahani M, Geraily G. Evaluation of dose calculation algorithms accuracy for eclipse, PCRT3D, and monaco treatment planning systems using IAEA TPS commissioning tests in a Heterogeneous Phantom. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2019 Jul 1;16(4):285-93.
  28. Mohammadian L, Bakhshandeh M, Saeedzadeh E, Jabbari Arfaee A. Dosimetric Comparison of Collapsed Cone Convolution/Superposition and Anisotropic Analytic Algorithms in the Presence of Exaskin Bolus in Radiotherapy. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2021;18(6):438-43.
  29. Zhao Y, Qi G, Yin G, Wang X, Wang P, Li J, et al. A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation. Radiation Oncology. 2014 Dec;9(1):1-9.
  30. Ali I, Ahmad S. Quantitative assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation using pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms and requirements for clinical quality assurance. Medical Dosimetry. 2013 Sep 1;38(3):255-61.
  31. Vanderstraeten B, Reynaert N, Paelinck L, Madani I, De Wagter C, De Gersem W, et al. Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations. Medical physics. 2006 Sep;33(9):3149-58.
  32. Kry SF, Alvarez P, Molineu A, Amador C, Galvin J, Followill DS. Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2013 Jan 1;85(1):e95-100.






Volume 19, Issue 6
November and December 2022
Pages 346-355
  • Receive Date: 07 February 2022
  • Revise Date: 18 April 2022
  • Accept Date: 27 April 2022
  • First Publish Date: 27 April 2022