SU‐E‐T‐06: Comparison of Different Commercial MU Verification Software in Terms of Accuracy and Performance

R. Mckinsey, Y. Qiu, Sotirios Stathakis, C. Esquivel, Nikos Papanikolaou, P. Mavroidis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: All radiation therapy departments have a need for a quick and accurate verification of their treatment plans ranging from conventional, brachytherapy, to IMRT. The aim of this study is to perform an inter‐comparison of different commercially available Monitor Unit (MU) secondary/independent software. Methods: In this study, four independent MU verification software were examined (IMSure, DIAMOND, MuCheck, and Radcalc) as quality assurance tools for RTP systems. An inter‐comparison of the treatment plans of 13 patients was performed using those MU verification software. All the plans were generated using the Pinnacle v9.2 treatment planning system. The treatment techniques include VMAT, MLC‐based step‐and‐shoot IMRT and Conventional Conformal plans for different treatment sites (breast, head and neck, chest, pelvis, abdomen, and brain). The parameters that had to be adjusted after importing the treatment plans into the different software were the average SSD and effective depth. Results: The average percent differences between the MUs provided by the Pinnacle and the RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND software were found to be −1.7%, −1.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The variation of the percent differences among the individual patients were 2.9% (−7.2 − 2.5), 3.7% (−7.2 − 3.7) and 7.0% (−9.9 – 16.2) for RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND, respectively. Conclusion: Importing the files from the Pinnacle RTP system was equally easy for all the software. It was found that Radcalc was the software that required the minimum changes/interventions when inserting the average SSD and effective depth. However, the Radcalc was the slower among the examined software in computing the MUs of the different beams for the VMAT technique. Overall, the variation of the MU calculations between the examined software was found to be very similar indicating that their ability to be used as quality assurance tools of the calculations provided by the RTP systems is equivalent.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)204
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Software Validation
Software
Silver Sulfadiazine
Therapeutics
Aptitude
Brachytherapy
Pelvis
Individuality
Abdomen
Breast
Neck
Radiotherapy
Thorax
Head

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐06 : Comparison of Different Commercial MU Verification Software in Terms of Accuracy and Performance. / Mckinsey, R.; Qiu, Y.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Esquivel, C.; Papanikolaou, Nikos; Mavroidis, P.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mckinsey, R. ; Qiu, Y. ; Stathakis, Sotirios ; Esquivel, C. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos ; Mavroidis, P. / SU‐E‐T‐06 : Comparison of Different Commercial MU Verification Software in Terms of Accuracy and Performance. In: Medical Physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 204.
@article{2586b54e669e4eecbcc4a221f820f660,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐06: Comparison of Different Commercial MU Verification Software in Terms of Accuracy and Performance",
abstract = "Purpose: All radiation therapy departments have a need for a quick and accurate verification of their treatment plans ranging from conventional, brachytherapy, to IMRT. The aim of this study is to perform an inter‐comparison of different commercially available Monitor Unit (MU) secondary/independent software. Methods: In this study, four independent MU verification software were examined (IMSure, DIAMOND, MuCheck, and Radcalc) as quality assurance tools for RTP systems. An inter‐comparison of the treatment plans of 13 patients was performed using those MU verification software. All the plans were generated using the Pinnacle v9.2 treatment planning system. The treatment techniques include VMAT, MLC‐based step‐and‐shoot IMRT and Conventional Conformal plans for different treatment sites (breast, head and neck, chest, pelvis, abdomen, and brain). The parameters that had to be adjusted after importing the treatment plans into the different software were the average SSD and effective depth. Results: The average percent differences between the MUs provided by the Pinnacle and the RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND software were found to be −1.7{\%}, −1.9{\%} and 3.4{\%}, respectively. The variation of the percent differences among the individual patients were 2.9{\%} (−7.2 − 2.5), 3.7{\%} (−7.2 − 3.7) and 7.0{\%} (−9.9 – 16.2) for RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND, respectively. Conclusion: Importing the files from the Pinnacle RTP system was equally easy for all the software. It was found that Radcalc was the software that required the minimum changes/interventions when inserting the average SSD and effective depth. However, the Radcalc was the slower among the examined software in computing the MUs of the different beams for the VMAT technique. Overall, the variation of the MU calculations between the examined software was found to be very similar indicating that their ability to be used as quality assurance tools of the calculations provided by the RTP systems is equivalent.",
author = "R. Mckinsey and Y. Qiu and Sotirios Stathakis and C. Esquivel and Nikos Papanikolaou and P. Mavroidis",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814440",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "204",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐06

T2 - Comparison of Different Commercial MU Verification Software in Terms of Accuracy and Performance

AU - Mckinsey, R.

AU - Qiu, Y.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Esquivel, C.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

AU - Mavroidis, P.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: All radiation therapy departments have a need for a quick and accurate verification of their treatment plans ranging from conventional, brachytherapy, to IMRT. The aim of this study is to perform an inter‐comparison of different commercially available Monitor Unit (MU) secondary/independent software. Methods: In this study, four independent MU verification software were examined (IMSure, DIAMOND, MuCheck, and Radcalc) as quality assurance tools for RTP systems. An inter‐comparison of the treatment plans of 13 patients was performed using those MU verification software. All the plans were generated using the Pinnacle v9.2 treatment planning system. The treatment techniques include VMAT, MLC‐based step‐and‐shoot IMRT and Conventional Conformal plans for different treatment sites (breast, head and neck, chest, pelvis, abdomen, and brain). The parameters that had to be adjusted after importing the treatment plans into the different software were the average SSD and effective depth. Results: The average percent differences between the MUs provided by the Pinnacle and the RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND software were found to be −1.7%, −1.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The variation of the percent differences among the individual patients were 2.9% (−7.2 − 2.5), 3.7% (−7.2 − 3.7) and 7.0% (−9.9 – 16.2) for RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND, respectively. Conclusion: Importing the files from the Pinnacle RTP system was equally easy for all the software. It was found that Radcalc was the software that required the minimum changes/interventions when inserting the average SSD and effective depth. However, the Radcalc was the slower among the examined software in computing the MUs of the different beams for the VMAT technique. Overall, the variation of the MU calculations between the examined software was found to be very similar indicating that their ability to be used as quality assurance tools of the calculations provided by the RTP systems is equivalent.

AB - Purpose: All radiation therapy departments have a need for a quick and accurate verification of their treatment plans ranging from conventional, brachytherapy, to IMRT. The aim of this study is to perform an inter‐comparison of different commercially available Monitor Unit (MU) secondary/independent software. Methods: In this study, four independent MU verification software were examined (IMSure, DIAMOND, MuCheck, and Radcalc) as quality assurance tools for RTP systems. An inter‐comparison of the treatment plans of 13 patients was performed using those MU verification software. All the plans were generated using the Pinnacle v9.2 treatment planning system. The treatment techniques include VMAT, MLC‐based step‐and‐shoot IMRT and Conventional Conformal plans for different treatment sites (breast, head and neck, chest, pelvis, abdomen, and brain). The parameters that had to be adjusted after importing the treatment plans into the different software were the average SSD and effective depth. Results: The average percent differences between the MUs provided by the Pinnacle and the RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND software were found to be −1.7%, −1.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The variation of the percent differences among the individual patients were 2.9% (−7.2 − 2.5), 3.7% (−7.2 − 3.7) and 7.0% (−9.9 – 16.2) for RadCalc, ImSure and DIAMOND, respectively. Conclusion: Importing the files from the Pinnacle RTP system was equally easy for all the software. It was found that Radcalc was the software that required the minimum changes/interventions when inserting the average SSD and effective depth. However, the Radcalc was the slower among the examined software in computing the MUs of the different beams for the VMAT technique. Overall, the variation of the MU calculations between the examined software was found to be very similar indicating that their ability to be used as quality assurance tools of the calculations provided by the RTP systems is equivalent.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024791128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024791128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814440

DO - 10.1118/1.4814440

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024791128

VL - 40

SP - 204

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -