Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic error as

measured with the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic thorax phantom

used for RTOG credentialing

Stephen F. Kry Ph.D.1, Paola Alvarez M.S.1, Andrea Molineu M.S.1,

Carrie Amador B.S.1, James Galvin Ph.D.2, and David Followill Ph.D.1

1Radiological Physics Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

2Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Philadelphia, PA

Wednesday, October 31, 2012 ASTRO Annual Meeting

Boston, MA

Introduction

• Dose calculation in thorax is challenging because of heterogeneous environment.

• Homogeneous and low quality heterogeneous dose calculations (e.g., Batho-corrected pencil beam) are highly inaccurate

• These algorithms are no longer allowed in NCI-sponsored clinical trials

Introduction

• Dose calculation in thorax is challenging because of heterogeneous environment.

• Homogeneous and low quality heterogeneous dose calculations (e.g., Batho-corrected pencil beam) are highly inaccurate

• These algorithms are no longer allowed in NCI-sponsored clinical trials

Introduction

• Dose calculation in thorax is challenging because of heterogeneous environment.

• Homogeneous and low quality heterogeneous dose calculations (e.g., Batho-corrected pencil beam) are highly inaccurate

• These algorithms are no longer allowed in NCI-sponsored clinical trials

• Convolution-Superposition/AAA algorithms are generally considered accurate

Verify dose delivery:

• RPC phantoms (treated like a patient)

Verify dose delivery:

• RPC phantoms (treated like a patient)

RPC phantoms:• Long history of use• Homogeneous phantoms:

– Average agreement of TLD and TPS: <1% • (Ibbott G et al. Technol Ca Res Treat 2006;5:481)

• Thoracic phantom– 2 TLD in center of lung target (3 cm x 5 cm)– Film in 3 planes

Irradiations• In this study:

– 304 irradiations– 6 MV irradiations– IMRT or 3D CRT– Moving or static– Various algorithms– All used heterogeneity

corrections

• Evaluate– TLD dose (vs TPS)– Planar agreement

• DTA or gamma

TLD Measurement vs TPS calculation

0.92

0.96

1.00

1.04

1.08

1/14/2004 10/10/2006 7/6/2009 4/1/2012

Date

Me

as

ure

d/C

alc

ula

ted

MC

0.994

TLD Measurement vs TPS calculation

0.92

0.96

1.00

1.04

1.08

1/14/2004 10/10/2006 7/6/2009 4/1/2012

Date

Me

as

ure

d/C

alc

ula

ted

MC PB

0.994

0.951

TLD Measurement vs TPS calculation

0.92

0.96

1.00

1.04

1.08

1/14/2004 10/10/2006 7/6/2009 4/1/2012

Date

Me

as

ure

d/C

alc

ula

ted

MC PB C/S AAA

0.994

0.951

0.963

TLD Dose Findings

• Measured doses systematically lower than calculated doses for C/S AAA algorithms (p<0.0001)

• No significant difference between C/S AAA algorithms

• For C/S AAA algorithms:• No significant difference between IMRT (mean=0.963) and 3D CRT

(mean=0.964) irradiations (p=0.7)

• No significant difference between moving (mean=0.961) and static (mean=0.964) irradiations (p=0.5)

• No significant trend versus irradiation date (p=0.2)

Planar film results

• Pencil Beam algorithms showed worst DTA (p=0.03)

• No significant difference between MC and CS/AAA

Pre-2010 analysis Post-2010 analysis

Discussion/Conclusions• Overestimation of dose with C/S AAA (3.7%)

– Dose to center of target– Agreement distribution not bimodal

• Why difference with MC?– Radiation transport– Dose reporting– CT calibration– Combination of these

• Issue for dose calculation accuracy (TG-65 goal: 1-2%)

• Potentially issue for dose reporting/prescribing

Thank You!

• This work was supported by grants

CA010953, CA081647, CA21661