Engineering topics

Kucuk, N

Publications and source records attributed to Kucuk, N.

7 records

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-SPS-01: Accuracy of the Small Field Dosimetry Using Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms of Eclipse Treatment Planning System Within and Beyond Heterogeneous Media for Trubeam 2.0 Unit

Purpose: In this study, the comparison of dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries Methods: Small open fields of Truebeam 2.0 unit (1×1, 2×2, 3×3, 4×4 fields) were used for this study. The fields were incident on homogeneous phantom and in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtaine dusing Trubeam 2.0 for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF, 15 MV energies by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement betweent wo algorithms and measurement. For Acuros XB, minimum gamma analysis passin grates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.3% and 98.1% for homogeneousand inhomogeneous fields in thecase of lung and bone respectively. For AAA, minimum gamma analysis passingrates were 99.1% and 96.5% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for all used energies and field sizes.In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculations algorithms. Over all, when compared to measurement, theAcuros XB had beter agreement than AAA. Conclusion: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the TPS is an improvemen tover theexisting AAA algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-SPS-04: Dosimetric Evaluation of the Dose Calculation Accuracy of Different Algorithms for Two Different Treatment Techniques During Whole Breast Irradiation

Purpose: In this study, dosimetric comparison of field in field (FIF) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques used for treatment of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) were made. The dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning system (TPS) for Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms in predicting PTV and OAR doses was also investigated. Methods: Two different treatment planning techniques of left-sided breast cancer were generated for rando phantom. FIF and IMRT plans were compared for doses in PTV and OAR volumes including ipsilateral lung, heart, left ascending coronary artery, contralateral lung and the contralateral breast. PTV and OARs doses and homogeneity and conformality indexes were compared between two techniques. The accuracy of TPS dose calculation algorithms was tested by comparing PTV and OAR doses measured by thermoluminescent dosimetry with the dose calculated by the TPS using AAA and AXB for both techniques. Results: IMRT plans had better conformality and homogeneity indexes than FIF technique and it spared OARs better than FIF. While both algorithms overestimated PTV doses they underestimated all OAR doses. For IMRT plan, PTV doses, overestimation up to 2.5 % was seen with AAA algorithm but it decreased to 1.8 % when AXB algorithm was used. Based on the results of the anthropomorphic measurements for OAR doses, underestimation greater than 7 % is possible by the AAA. The results from the AXB are much better than the AAA algorithm. However, underestimations of 4.8 % were found in some of the points even for AXB. For FIF plan, similar trend was seen for PTV and OARs doses in both algorithm. Conclusion: When using the Eclipse TPS for breast cancer, AXB the should be used instead of the AAA algorithm, bearing in mind that the AXB may still underestimate all OAR doses.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-SPS-05: Experimental Validation of Peripheral Dose Distribution of Electron Beams for Eclipse Electron Monte Carlo Algorithm

Purpose: In this study, the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system(TPS), the electron Monte Carlo(eMC) and General Gaussian Pencil Beam(GGPB) algorithms were used to compare measured and calculated peripheral dose distribution of electron beams. Methods: Peripheral dose measurements were carried out for 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 22 MeV electron beams of Varian Triology machine using parallel plate ionization chamber and EBT3 films in the slab phantom. Measurements were performed for 6×6, 10×10 and 25×25cm{sup 2} cone sizes at dmax of each energy up to 20cm beyond the field edges. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained for each energy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. Dose distribution measured using parallel plate ionization chamber and EBT3 film and calculated by eMC and GGPB algorithms were compared. The measured and calculated data were then compared to find which algorithm calculates peripheral dose distribution more accurately. Results: The agreement between measurement and eMC was better than GGPB. The TPS underestimated the out of field doses. The difference between measured and calculated doses increase with the cone size. The largest deviation between calculated and parallel plate ionization chamber measured dose is less than 4.93% for eMC, but it can increase up to 7.51% for GGPB. For film measurement, the minimum gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 98.2% and 92.7% for eMC and GGPB respectively for all field sizes and energies. Conclusion: Our results show that the Monte Carlo algorithm for electron planning in Eclipse is more accurate than previous algorithms for peripheral dose distributions. It must be emphasized that the use of GGPB for planning large field treatments with 6 MeV could lead to inaccuracies of clinical significance.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-SPS-10: The Dosimetric Comparison of GammaKnife and Cyberknife Treatment Plans for Brain SRS Treatment

Purpose: Brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) involves the use of precisely directed, single session radiation to create a desired radiobiologic response within the brain target with acceptable minimal effects on surrounding structures or tissues. In this study, the dosimetric comparison of GammaKnife perfection and Cyberknife M6 treatment plans were made. Methods: Treatment plannings were done for GammaKnife perfection unit using Gammaplan treatment planning system (TPS) on the CT scan of head and neck randophantom simulating the treatment of sterotactic treatments for one brain metastasis. The dose distribution were calculated using TMR 10 algorithm. The treatment planning for the same target were also done for Cyberknife M6 machine using Multiplan (TPS) with Monte Carlo algorithm. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained using both machine by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. Dose distribution were measured using EBT3 film dosimeter. The measured and calculated doses were compared. Results: The dose distribution in the target and 2 cm beyond the target edge were calculated on TPSs and measured using EBT3 film. For cyberknife treatment plans, the gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.2% and 96.7% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. For gammaknife treatment plans, the gamma analysis passing rates were 98.9% and 93.2% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. Conclusion: The study shows that dosimetrically comparable plans are achievable with Cyberknife and GammaKnife. Although TMR 10 algorithm predicts the target dose.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-SPS-11: The Dosimetric Comparison of Truebeam 2.0 and Cyberknife M6 Treatment Plans for Brain SRS Treatment

Purpose: Brain stereotactic radiosurgery involves the use of precisely directed, single session radiation to create a desired radiobiologic response within the brain target with acceptable minimal effects on surrounding structures or tissues. In this study, the dosimetric comparison of Truebeam 2.0 and Cyberknife M6 treatment plans were made. Methods: For Truebeam 2.0 machine, treatment planning were done using 2 full arc VMAT technique with 6 FFF beam on the CT scan of Randophantom simulating the treatment of sterotactic treatments for one brain metastasis. The dose distribution were calculated using Eclipse treatment planning system with Acuros XB algorithm. The treatment planning of the same target were also done for Cyberknife M6 machine with Multiplan treatment planning system using Monte Carlo algorithm. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained using both machine by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. Dose distribution were measured using EBT3 film dosimeter. The measured and calculated doses were compared. Results: The dose distribution in the target and 2 cm beyond the target edge were calculated on TPSs and measured using EBT3 film. For cyberknife plans, the gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.2% and 96.7% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. For Truebeam plans, the gamma analysis passing rates were 99.1% and 95.5% for target and peripheral region of target respectively. Conclusion: Although, target dose distribution calculated accurately by Acuros XB and Monte Carlo algorithms, Monte carlo calculation algorithm predicts dose distribution around the peripheral region of target more accurately than Acuros algorithm.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-616: Comparison of Different Techniques Using RTOG0631 Guidelines in Spine SBRT

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) for spine metastases involves irradiation using a single high dose fraction. The purpose of this study was to investigate a Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique which combines volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for spine SBRT in terms of its dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0631 guidelines. Methods: 7 fields IMRT, 2 full arcs VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT were created for ten previously treated patients. The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique consisted of 1 full VMAT arc and 5 IMRT fields. Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans were compared with IMRT and VMAT plans in terms of the dose distribution, spinal cord sparing, homogeneity, conformity and gradient indexies, monitor unit (MU) and beam on time (BOT). RTOG 0631 recommendations were applied for treatment planning. All plans were normalized and prescribed to deliver 18.0 Gy in a single fraction to 90% of the target volume. Results: The Hybrid VMAT/IMRT technique significantly improved target dose homogeneity and conformity compared with IMRT and VMAT techniques. Providing sharp dose gradient Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans spare the spinal cord and healthy tissue more effectively. Although, both MU and BOT slightly increased in Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans there is no statistically meaningful difference between VMAT and Hybrid VMAT/IMRT plans. Conclusion: In IMRT, a smaller volume of healthy tissue can be irradiated in the low dose region, VMAT plans provide better target volume coverage, favorable dose gradient, conformity and better OAR sparing and also they require a much smaller number of MUs and thus a shorter treatment time than IMRT plans. Hybrid plan offers a sinergy through combination of these two techniques with slightly increased number of MU and thus more treatment time.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

SU-E-T-548: How To Decrease Spine Dose In Patients Who Underwent Sterotactic Spine Radiosurgery?

Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery for spine metastases involves irradiation using a single high dose fraction. The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare stereotactic spine radiosurgery(SRS) plans using a recently new volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) technique against fix-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy(IMRT). Plans were evaluated for target conformity and spinal cord sparing. Methods: Fifteen previously treated patients were replanned using the Eclipse 10.1 TPS AAA calculation algorithm. IMRT plans with 7 fields were generated. The arc plans used 2 full arc configurations. Arc and IMRT plans were normalized and prescribed to deliver 16.0 Gy in a single fraction to 90% of the planning target volume(PTV). PTVs consisted of the vertebral body expanded by 3mm, excluding the PRV-cord, where the cord was expanded by 2mm.RTOG 0631 recommendations were applied for treatment planning. Partial spinal cord volume was defined as 5mm above and below the radiosurgery target volume. Plans were compared for conformity and gradient index as well as spinal cord sparing. Results: The conformity index values of fifteen patients for two different treatment planning techniques were shown in table 1. Conformity index values for 2 full arc planning (average CI=0.84) were higher than that of IMRT planning (average CI=0.79). The gradient index values of fifteen patients for two different treatment planning techniques were shown in table 2. Gradient index values for 2 full arc planning (average GI=3.58) were higher than that of IMRT planning (average GI=2.82).The spinal cord doses of fifteen patients for two different treatment planning techniques were shown in table 3. D0.35cc, D0.03cc and partial spinal cord D10% values in 2 full arc plannings (average D0.35cc=819.3cGy, D0.03cc=965.4cGy, 10%partial spinal=718.1cGy) were lower than IMRT plannings (average D0.35cc=877.4cGy, D0.03c=1071.4cGy, 10%partial spinal=805.1cGy). Conclusions: The two arc VMAT technique is superior to 7 field IMRT technique in terms of both spinal cord sparing and better conformity and gradient indexes.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗