Verification of four-dimensional photon dose calculations

Abstract

Recent work in the area of thoracic treatment planning has been focused on trying to explicitly incorporate patient-specific organ motion in the calculation of dose. Four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation algorithms have been developed and incorporated in a research version of a commercial treatment planning system (Pinnacle3, Philips Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA). Before these 4D dose calculations can be used clinically, it is necessary to verify their accuracy with measurements. The primary purpose of this study therefore was to evaluate and validate the accuracy of a 4D dose calculation algorithm with phantom measurements. A secondary objective was to determine whether the performance of the 4D dose calculation algorithm varied between different motion patterns and treatment plans. Measurements were made using two phantoms: A rigid moving phantom and a deformable phantom. The rigid moving phantom consisted of an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom that rested on a programmable motion platform. The deformable phantom used the same anthropomorphic thoracic phantom with a deformable insert for one of the lungs. Two motion patterns were investigated for each phantom: A sinusoidal motion pattern and an irregular motion pattern extracted from a patient breathing profile. A single-beam plan, a multiple-beam plan, and an intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan were created. Doses were calculated in the treatment planning system using the 4D dose calculation algorithm. Then each plan was delivered to the phantoms and delivered doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and film. The measured doses were compared to the 4D-calculated doses using a measured-to-calculated TLD ratio and a gamma analysis. A relevant passing criteria (3% for the TLD and 5% /3 mm for the gamma metric) was applied to determine if the 4D dose calculations were accurate to within clinical standards. All the TLD measurements in both phantoms satisfied the passing criteria. Furthermore, 42 of the 48 evaluated films fulfilled the passing criteria. All films that did not pass the criteria were from the rigid phantom moving with irregular motion. The author concluded that if patient breathing is reproducible, the 4D dose calculations are accurate to within clinically acceptable standards. Furthermore, they found no statistically significant differences in the performance of the 4D dose calculation algorithm between treatment plans.