SU‐FF‐T‐265

Comparison of Absorbed Dose‐To‐Medium and Absorbed‐Dose‐To‐Water for (head and Neck and Prostate) IMRT Treatment Plans

Nesrin Dogan, J. Siebers, P. Keall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Conventional photon dose calculation algorithms typically report the absorbed dose‐to‐water(Dwater). Monte Carlo(MC) dose calculation algorithms, however, by default reports the absorbed dose‐to‐medium(Dmedium). It has been suggested that for clinical comparisons, MC‐Dmedium results should be converted into Dwater to ensure valid comparisons. The goal of this study is to assess if the difference between Dwater and Dmedium is clinically significant for MC calculated IMRT plans. Method and Materials: Ten patients with H&N and ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. Existing IMRT plans were re‐calculated using an EGS4‐based MC dose calculation system. Dmedium was converted to Dwater by multiplying Dmedium results by average water‐to‐medium stopping power ratio. Dwater and Dmedium results for target and critical structures were evaluated using the DVH‐based indices: D2(dose to 2% of the structure volume), D50(dose to 50% of the structure volume), D98(dose to 98% of the target volume), and Dmean(mean dose). Results: For H&N, although the changes in average dose‐volume indices were less than 1.5%, up to 6.2% differences in PTVCTV D2 were observed for individual patients. The cord and brainstem D2 indices changed up to 2.5% and 2.7% respectively. For prostate, the differences in the indices for targets were less than 1%. The changes in critical structure indices were less than 1%, except for two patients in which changes up to 2.7% in rectum D50 index were observed. The increases in the range of 4.5– 11.5% in the femur dose‐volume indices were observed in converting from Dmedium to Dwater due to the high calcium content of the hard bones. Conclusion: This study showed that converting dose‐to‐medium to dose‐to‐water in MC‐based IMRT plans may significantly change the structure doses for some cases, especially when hard bone containing structures such as the femurs are present.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Neck
Head
Femur
Bone and Bones
Therapeutics
Photons
Rectum
Brain Stem
Prostatic Neoplasms
Calcium

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{1dfa0b9cf4a344ff98bdcc19484af5c8,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐265: Comparison of Absorbed Dose‐To‐Medium and Absorbed‐Dose‐To‐Water for (head and Neck and Prostate) IMRT Treatment Plans",
abstract = "Purpose: Conventional photon dose calculation algorithms typically report the absorbed dose‐to‐water(Dwater). Monte Carlo(MC) dose calculation algorithms, however, by default reports the absorbed dose‐to‐medium(Dmedium). It has been suggested that for clinical comparisons, MC‐Dmedium results should be converted into Dwater to ensure valid comparisons. The goal of this study is to assess if the difference between Dwater and Dmedium is clinically significant for MC calculated IMRT plans. Method and Materials: Ten patients with H&N and ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. Existing IMRT plans were re‐calculated using an EGS4‐based MC dose calculation system. Dmedium was converted to Dwater by multiplying Dmedium results by average water‐to‐medium stopping power ratio. Dwater and Dmedium results for target and critical structures were evaluated using the DVH‐based indices: D2(dose to 2{\%} of the structure volume), D50(dose to 50{\%} of the structure volume), D98(dose to 98{\%} of the target volume), and Dmean(mean dose). Results: For H&N, although the changes in average dose‐volume indices were less than 1.5{\%}, up to 6.2{\%} differences in PTVCTV D2 were observed for individual patients. The cord and brainstem D2 indices changed up to 2.5{\%} and 2.7{\%} respectively. For prostate, the differences in the indices for targets were less than 1{\%}. The changes in critical structure indices were less than 1{\%}, except for two patients in which changes up to 2.7{\%} in rectum D50 index were observed. The increases in the range of 4.5– 11.5{\%} in the femur dose‐volume indices were observed in converting from Dmedium to Dwater due to the high calcium content of the hard bones. Conclusion: This study showed that converting dose‐to‐medium to dose‐to‐water in MC‐based IMRT plans may significantly change the structure doses for some cases, especially when hard bone containing structures such as the femurs are present.",
author = "Nesrin Dogan and J. Siebers and P. Keall",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1118/1.1997994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐265

T2 - Comparison of Absorbed Dose‐To‐Medium and Absorbed‐Dose‐To‐Water for (head and Neck and Prostate) IMRT Treatment Plans

AU - Dogan, Nesrin

AU - Siebers, J.

AU - Keall, P.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Purpose: Conventional photon dose calculation algorithms typically report the absorbed dose‐to‐water(Dwater). Monte Carlo(MC) dose calculation algorithms, however, by default reports the absorbed dose‐to‐medium(Dmedium). It has been suggested that for clinical comparisons, MC‐Dmedium results should be converted into Dwater to ensure valid comparisons. The goal of this study is to assess if the difference between Dwater and Dmedium is clinically significant for MC calculated IMRT plans. Method and Materials: Ten patients with H&N and ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. Existing IMRT plans were re‐calculated using an EGS4‐based MC dose calculation system. Dmedium was converted to Dwater by multiplying Dmedium results by average water‐to‐medium stopping power ratio. Dwater and Dmedium results for target and critical structures were evaluated using the DVH‐based indices: D2(dose to 2% of the structure volume), D50(dose to 50% of the structure volume), D98(dose to 98% of the target volume), and Dmean(mean dose). Results: For H&N, although the changes in average dose‐volume indices were less than 1.5%, up to 6.2% differences in PTVCTV D2 were observed for individual patients. The cord and brainstem D2 indices changed up to 2.5% and 2.7% respectively. For prostate, the differences in the indices for targets were less than 1%. The changes in critical structure indices were less than 1%, except for two patients in which changes up to 2.7% in rectum D50 index were observed. The increases in the range of 4.5– 11.5% in the femur dose‐volume indices were observed in converting from Dmedium to Dwater due to the high calcium content of the hard bones. Conclusion: This study showed that converting dose‐to‐medium to dose‐to‐water in MC‐based IMRT plans may significantly change the structure doses for some cases, especially when hard bone containing structures such as the femurs are present.

AB - Purpose: Conventional photon dose calculation algorithms typically report the absorbed dose‐to‐water(Dwater). Monte Carlo(MC) dose calculation algorithms, however, by default reports the absorbed dose‐to‐medium(Dmedium). It has been suggested that for clinical comparisons, MC‐Dmedium results should be converted into Dwater to ensure valid comparisons. The goal of this study is to assess if the difference between Dwater and Dmedium is clinically significant for MC calculated IMRT plans. Method and Materials: Ten patients with H&N and ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. Existing IMRT plans were re‐calculated using an EGS4‐based MC dose calculation system. Dmedium was converted to Dwater by multiplying Dmedium results by average water‐to‐medium stopping power ratio. Dwater and Dmedium results for target and critical structures were evaluated using the DVH‐based indices: D2(dose to 2% of the structure volume), D50(dose to 50% of the structure volume), D98(dose to 98% of the target volume), and Dmean(mean dose). Results: For H&N, although the changes in average dose‐volume indices were less than 1.5%, up to 6.2% differences in PTVCTV D2 were observed for individual patients. The cord and brainstem D2 indices changed up to 2.5% and 2.7% respectively. For prostate, the differences in the indices for targets were less than 1%. The changes in critical structure indices were less than 1%, except for two patients in which changes up to 2.7% in rectum D50 index were observed. The increases in the range of 4.5– 11.5% in the femur dose‐volume indices were observed in converting from Dmedium to Dwater due to the high calcium content of the hard bones. Conclusion: This study showed that converting dose‐to‐medium to dose‐to‐water in MC‐based IMRT plans may significantly change the structure doses for some cases, especially when hard bone containing structures such as the femurs are present.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024827094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024827094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.1997994

DO - 10.1118/1.1997994

M3 - Article

VL - 32

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -