Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:01:25.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the accuracy of treatment planning system based radiotherapy structure volumes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2020

Richa Sharma Open the ORCID record for Richa Sharma [Opens in a new window] ,
Sunil Dutt Sharma  and
Devesh Kumar Avasthi
Richa Sharma*
Affiliation:
Amity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida201313, India Department of Medical Physics, Delhi State Cancer Institutes, Delhi110095, India
Sunil Dutt Sharma
Affiliation:
Radiological Physics & Advisory Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai400094, India
Devesh Kumar Avasthi
Affiliation:
Amity Centre for Accelerator based Fundamental and Applied Research, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida201313, India Amity Centre for Advance Research and Innovation, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida201313, India
*
Author for correspondence: Richa Sharma, Department of Applied Physics, Amity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida201313, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

The purpose of the present study was to assess the accuracy of radiotherapy (RT) structure volume generated by the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) for three different computed tomography (CT) slice thicknesses. Further, this study addressed the important issue of ‘different volumes of the same RT structure shown at different places’ in the Monaco TPS. Also, the practical impact of this difference in structure volumes has been studied for brain or head and neck patients.

Materials and Methods:

Objects of known volumes were scanned with different CT slice thicknesses and contoured as an RT structure in Monaco TPS and two different volumes provided by the TPS for each RT structure were noted and compared with the real volumes of these objects. In addition, correlation was also assessed between TPS provided volumes and real volumes of these objects. The study was further extended to obtain correlation of volumes in cases of organs that exist in pairs (e.g., eye) in the human body.

Results:

Monaco TPS overestimates structure volumes except for objects with sharp corners. Although, volumes shown at different places of the same structure have nearly a linear correlation, volumes under structure table are more accurate than those shown under dose–volume histogram (DVH) statistics (total volume) table. Difference in magnitude between these two volumes has no correlation if this difference is analysed for paired organs.

Findings:

This study confirmed that Monaco TPS provides ‘different value at different places’ of the volume of a given contoured structure. It is recommended that this issue should be reviewed and resolved by the supplier.

Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 31 - 35
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

TRS 430: Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. Vienna: IAEA, 2004.Google Scholar
Herk, M V. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14: 52–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Marks, L B, Yorke, E D, Jackson, A et al. The use of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; S: 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, R, Passi, K R, Devi, K M, Sood, S. A statistical study based on comparison between two treatment planning systems while exporting RT structure set. In: Jaffray D (ed) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, June 7-12, 2015, Toronto, Canada. IFMBE Proceedings, Vol 51. Cham, Switzerland. Springer 2015: 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhakar, R, Rath, G K, Haresh, K P et al. A study on the tumor volume computation between different 3D treatment planning systems in radiotherapy. J Cancer Res Ther 2011; 7: 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, M, Schupp, N, Tattersall, M, Brown, A, Larson, R. Monaco treatment planning system tools and optimization processes. Med Dosim 2018; 43: 106–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raina, P, Singh, S, Tudu, R, Singh, R, Kumar, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a dosimetric comparison with dynamic IMRT and step-and-shoot IMRT. J Radiother Pract 2019; 1–6.Google Scholar
Snyder, J E, Hyer, D E, Flynn, R T, Boczkowski, A, Wang, D. The commissioning and validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20 (1): 184–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohandass, P, Khanna, D, Manigandan, D, Bhalla, N K, Puri, A. Validation of a software upgrade in a Monte Carlo treatment planning system by comparison of plans in different versions. J Med Phys 2018; 43: 93–99.Google Scholar
Vinod, S K, Jameson, M G, Min, M, Holloway, L C. Uncertainties in volume delineation in radiation oncology: a systematic review and recommendations for future studies. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegel, M R, Stephens, L J (ed.). Schaum’s outline of theory and problems of Statistics, 3rd edn. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Edition, 2000.Google Scholar