Accuracy of a Novel Head and Neck Phantom for Heterogeneous Media Verification Using an Irregular Field Algorithm
Objectives: The treatment outcome in patients can be improved with a fast and accurate treatment planning system (TPS) algorithm. The aim of this study was to design a novel head and neck phantom and to use it to test whether the accuracy of the irregular field algorithm of the Precise Plan 2.16 (Elekta Instrument AB, Stockholm, Sweden) TPS was within ±5% of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) limit for homogenous and inhomogeneous media by rotating the Elekta Precise linear accelerator gantry angle using 2 fields.
Methods: A locally designed acrylic phantom was constructed in the shape of a block with 5 inserts. Acquisition of images was performed using a HiSpeed NX/i computed tomography scanner (GE Healthcare, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA); the Precise Plan 2.16 TPS was used to determine the beam application setup parameters and an Elekta Precise linear accelerator was used for radiation dose delivery. A pre-calibrated NE 2570/1 Farmer-type ion chamber with an electrometer was used to measure the dose. The mimicked organs were the brain, temporal bone, trachea, and skull.
Results: The maximum percentage deviation for 10×10 cm and 5×5 cm inhomogeneous inserts was 1.62 and 4.6, respectively, at a gantry angle of 180°, and that of the 10×10 cm homogeneous insert was 3.41 at a gantry angle of 270°. The percentage deviation for only the bone insert (homogeneous) and for all inserts (inhomogeneous) using parallel opposed beams was 2.89 and 2.07, respectively. Also, the percentage deviation between the locally designed head and neck phantom and the solid water phantom of the linear accelerator was 0.3%.
Conclusion: The validation result of our novel phantom in comparison with the solid water phantom was good. The maximum percentage deviations were below the ICRU limit of ±5%, irrespective of gantry angles and field sizes.
1. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy. IAEA Technical Reports Series. No.398. Vienna, Austria: IAEA Publications; 2000.
2. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Determination of Absorbed Dose in Patient Irradiated by Means of X or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Procedures. ICRU Report 24. Bethesda: ICRU Publications; 1977.
3. A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1983;10:741–71. [CrossRef]
4. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, et al. AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1999;26:1847–70. [CrossRef]
5. Dische S, Saunders MI, Williams C, Hopkins A, Aird E. Precision in reporting the dose given in a course of radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 1993;29:287–93. [CrossRef]
6. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Dose Specifications for Reporting External Beam Therapy with Photons and Electrons. ICRU Report 29. Baltimore: Bethesda; 1978.
7. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. ICRU Report 62. Baltimore: Bethesda; 1993.
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. Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:R99–155.
10. O’Connor JE. The variation of scattered x-rays with density in an irradiated body. Phys Med Biol 1957;1:352–69. [CrossRef]
11. Woo MK, Cunningham JR. The validity of the density scaling method in primary electron transport for photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1990;17:187–94. [CrossRef]
12. Keall P, Hoban P. Accounting for primary electron scatter in x-ray beam convolution calculations. Med Phys 1995;22:1413–8.
13. Miften M, Wiesmeyer M, Monthofer S, Krippner K. Implementation of FFT convolution and multigrid superposition models in the FOCUS RTP system. Phys Med Biol 2000;45:817–33.
14. Mackie TR, el-Khatib E, Battista J, Scrimger J, Van Dyk J, Cunningham JR. Lung dose corrections for 6- and 15-MV x rays. Med Phys 1985;12:327–32. [CrossRef]
15. Fraass BA. Quality assurance for 3-D treatment planning. In: Palta J, Mackie TR, editors. Teletherapy: Present and Future.
Madison: Advanced Medical Publishing; 1996. p. 253-318.
16. Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R, et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998;25:1773–829.
17. Mayles WPM, Lake R, McKenzie A, Macaulay EM, Morgan HM, Jordan TJ, et al. Physics aspects of quality control in radiotherapy. IPEM Report 81. York: the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine; 1999.
18. Jacky J, White CP. Testing a 3-D radiation therapy planning program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990;18:253–61. [CrossRef]
19. Cygler J, Ross J. Electron dose distributions in an anthropomorphic phantom-verification of Theraplan treatment planning algorithm. Med Dosim 1988;13:155–8. [CrossRef]
20. Johns HE, Cunningham JR. The Physics of Radiology. 3rd ed. Thomas; 1969. p. 362–3.
21. Khan FM. The Physics of Radiation Therapy. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 1st ed. 1984; p. 321, 787–94.
22. Khan FM. The Physics of Radiation Therapy. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003.
23. Mijnheer BJ, Battermann JJ, Wambersie A. What degree of accuracy is required and can be achieved in photon and neutron therapy? Radiother Oncol 1987;8:237–52. [CrossRef]
24. Podgorsak EB. Radiation Oncology Physics: A handbook for Teachers and Students. Vienna: IAEA Publication; 2005.
25. Shaw JE. A Guide to Commissioning and Quality Control of Treatment Planning Systems. The Institution of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and Biology; 1994.
26. Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;26:261–73. [CrossRef]
27. Cunningham JR, Shrivastava PN, Wilkinson JM. Computer calculation of dose within irregularly shaped beam. In: Dosimetry workshop, Hodgkin’s disease. Chicago: Radiological Physics Center; 1970.
28. Cunningham JR. Scatter-air ratios. Phys Med Biol 1972;17:42–51.
29. Clarkson JR. Note on Depth Doses in Fields of Irregular Shapes. Br J Radiol. 1941;14:265–8. [CrossRef]
30. Andreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfeld K, Huq MS, Kanai T, Laitano F, et al. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 398. Vienna: IAEA; 2000.
31. Akpochafor MO, Omojola AD, Adeneye SO, Aweda MA, Oniyangi MS, Iloputaife CC. Verification of an irregular field algorithm of a treatment planning system using a locally designed pelvic phantom: A simple design low-cost phantom suitable for quality assurance and control test in radiotherapy. Int J Health Allied Sci 2017;6:39–44.
32. Brahme A, Chavaudra J, Landberg T, McCullough EC, Nüsslin F, Rawlinson JA, et al. Accuracy requirements and quality assurance of external beam therapy with photons and electrons. Acta Oncol 1988;27:1–76.