Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Verification of Monitor unit calculations for eclipse Treatment Planning System by in- house developed spreadsheet

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Hemalatha Athiyaman 1
Athiyaman Mayilvaganan 2
Arun Chougule 3
kumar HS 4
1 Assistant professor,department of radiological physics,SP Medical college
2 Department of Radiological physics S.P.Medical College
3 Professor and Head,Department of Radiological physics, SMS Medical College,Jaipur, Rajajsthan,India
4 SP Medical college,bikaner,rajasthan,India
10.22038/ijmp.2017.22844.1221
Abstract
Introduction: Computerized treatment planning is a rapidly evolving modality that depends on hardware and software efficiency. Despite ICRU recommendations suggesting 5% deviation in dose delivery the overall uncertainty shall be less than 3.5% as suggested by B.J. Minjnheer. J. In house spreadsheets are developed by the medical physicists to cross-verify the dose calculated by the Treatment Planning System (TPS).
Materials and Methods: The monitor unit verification calculation (MUVC) verification was tested for pre-approved and executed treatment plans taken from the TPS. A total of 108 square fields and 120 multileaf-collimators (MLC) shaped fields for Head & Neck cancers, cervical and esophageal cancers were taken for evaluation. In house developed spreadsheet based on Microsoft Excel was developed. The dose calculation parameters such as Output Factor (O.F), Percentage Depth Dose (PDD) and off axis ratio (OAR) data were taken from the TPS.
 Results: The overall MU ratio fell within the range of 0.999 to 1.02 for square field geometries showing deviation of 1% between the TPS calculation and the spread sheet calculation. The MU ratios were 0.995 for Head & Neck plans & 1.012 for cervix plans with the standard deviation of 0.024 & 0.029 respectively. However we observed the mean MU ratio for Esophagus plan was 1.026 with the standard deviation of 0.040.
Conclusion: The spreadsheet was tested for most of the routine treatment sites and geometries. It has good agreement with the Eclipse TPS version 13.8 for homogenous treatment sites such as head &and neck and carcinoma cervix.
Keywords
Radiotherapy planning
Computer Assisted Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Dosage
Subjects
  1. Delaney  G, Jacob S, Featherstone C, Barton M. The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment. Cancer.2005; 104: 1129–37.
  2. Murugan A, Valas XS, Thayalan K, Ramasubramanian V. Dosimetric evaluation of a three-dimensional treatment planning system. J Med Phys .2011;36:15-21.
  3. ICRU report no. 50: prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland; 1993
  4. ICRU report no. 62: prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy – supplement to ICRU report 50. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland; 1999
  5. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson W, Leibel S, Morton R.Jet al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21:581–618.
  6. Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Schragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:261–273.
  7. Sathiyan S, Ravikumar M, Keshava S.L. Relative Output Factors and Absolute Equivalent Square Fields at Depths for High Energy X-Ray and Gamma Ray Beams. Austral Asian Journal of Cancer .2006: 5(4):  225-35.
  8. 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. Med Phys. 1997;24:2043-54.
  9. Ev, IAEA Radiation Oncology Physics: Handbook for teachers and students; IAEA , VIENNA  2005
  10. IAEA, Investigation of an accidental exposure of radiotherapy patients in Panama. Report of a team of experts, 26 May -1 June 2001
  11. Chan J,Russell D, Peter VG,Farell TJ .Comparison of monitor unit calculations performed with a 3D computerized planning system and independent ‘‘hand’’ calculations: Results of three years clinical experience. J Appl Clinic Med Phys.2002;3(4):293-301.
  12. Mijnheer  BJ, Battermann JJ, Wambersie A .What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neutron therapy?. Radiother. Oncol. 1987; 8(3): 237–   52.
  13. Butts JR, Foster AE.  Comparison of commercially available three-dimensional treatment planning algorithms for monitor unit calculations in the presence of heterogeneities. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2001;2:32–41.
  14. Fraass, B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkshall G, Stern  R et al. AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998;25:1773–1829.
  15. Chen Z, Xing L, Nath R. Independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated radiotherapy using the MIMiC multileaf collimator. Med Phys 2002;29:2041-51.
  16. Kay I,Dunscombe P.Verifying  monitor unit calculations for tangential breast field. Am coll Med Phys .2006; 7: 50-57.
  17. Starkschall  G, Steadham RE,Wells NH ,Neill LO, Miller LA, Rosen II.On the need for monitor unit  calculations as part of a beam commissioning methodology for a radiation treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2000; 1: 86–94 .
  18. Leszczynski KW, Dunscom PB .Independent corroboration of monitor unit calculations performed by a 3D computerized planning system. J Appl  Clin Med Phys .2000;1(4): 120-5.
  19. Sellakumar A, Arun b. Comparison of monitor units calculated by radiotherapy treatment planning system and an independent monitor unit verification software Physica Medica 2011. 27, 21-29.
  20. Knight RT, Mayles WPM. An application of a computer spreadsheet to checking dose plans in radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol 1991;36(5):655-8.

  • Receive Date 05 April 2017
  • Revise Date 16 October 2017
  • Accept Date 10 November 2017