SU‐FF‐T‐151: Development of a Toolkit for Dose Verification and Comparison Between Treatment Planning Systems

Nikos Papanikolaou, Y. Liu, Sotirios Stathakis, C. Shi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a generalized software toolkit for comprehensive dosimetric analysis and comparison between treatment planning systems. Method and Materials: A toolkit was developed for the purpose of manipulating the 3D dose matrix generated by the CrossPlan treatment planning system (TPS) for a dual micro‐multileaf collimator (mMLC) and the Pinnacle3 TPS. The toolkit can convert 3D dose matrices calculated by CrossPlan and export it to Pinnacle3. Two different trials based on the same patient anatomy and beam arrangement were planned and compared between the two TPS. The dose matrices by both CrossPlan and Pinnacle3 TPS were evaluated and analyzed. The comparison parameters included isodose overlay, dose profiles, gamma analysis, dose volume histogram and 3D dose difference. In addition, the RIT dose analysis tools were used to evaluate the isodose overlay, gamma analysis, dose profiles and dose difference between the two TPS. This application was extended to other TPS including Monte Carlo (EGS and MCNP). Results: The toolkit was effective in converting the 3D dose matrix calculated by CrossPlan and subsequently exporting it to Pinnacle3. The 50%, 70% and 90% isodose lines show good agreement and the dose profiles match closely. The gamma analysis showed a good agreement, with only 2% of the gamma value exceeding the pass/fail threshold (gamma=1). The maximum dose difference was less than 11 % at the penumbra of the field edge and the mean dose difference was less than 1%. Conclusion: A toolkit has been developed for processing the conversion and exportation of 3D dose matrices generated by a TPS. The Pinnacle3 and CrossPlan TPS were used to demonstrate the utilization of the toolkit. Overall, the comparison based on various dosimetric indices showed good agreement between the Pinnacle and CrossPlan TPS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2435-2436
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2007

Fingerprint

Therapeutics
Anatomy
Software

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐T‐151 : Development of a Toolkit for Dose Verification and Comparison Between Treatment Planning Systems. / Papanikolaou, Nikos; Liu, Y.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Shi, C.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2007, p. 2435-2436.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8b026765a31f473cbdf83c92b55a2af2,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐151: Development of a Toolkit for Dose Verification and Comparison Between Treatment Planning Systems",
abstract = "Purpose: To develop a generalized software toolkit for comprehensive dosimetric analysis and comparison between treatment planning systems. Method and Materials: A toolkit was developed for the purpose of manipulating the 3D dose matrix generated by the CrossPlan treatment planning system (TPS) for a dual micro‐multileaf collimator (mMLC) and the Pinnacle3 TPS. The toolkit can convert 3D dose matrices calculated by CrossPlan and export it to Pinnacle3. Two different trials based on the same patient anatomy and beam arrangement were planned and compared between the two TPS. The dose matrices by both CrossPlan and Pinnacle3 TPS were evaluated and analyzed. The comparison parameters included isodose overlay, dose profiles, gamma analysis, dose volume histogram and 3D dose difference. In addition, the RIT dose analysis tools were used to evaluate the isodose overlay, gamma analysis, dose profiles and dose difference between the two TPS. This application was extended to other TPS including Monte Carlo (EGS and MCNP). Results: The toolkit was effective in converting the 3D dose matrix calculated by CrossPlan and subsequently exporting it to Pinnacle3. The 50{\%}, 70{\%} and 90{\%} isodose lines show good agreement and the dose profiles match closely. The gamma analysis showed a good agreement, with only 2{\%} of the gamma value exceeding the pass/fail threshold (gamma=1). The maximum dose difference was less than 11 {\%} at the penumbra of the field edge and the mean dose difference was less than 1{\%}. Conclusion: A toolkit has been developed for processing the conversion and exportation of 3D dose matrices generated by a TPS. The Pinnacle3 and CrossPlan TPS were used to demonstrate the utilization of the toolkit. Overall, the comparison based on various dosimetric indices showed good agreement between the Pinnacle and CrossPlan TPS.",
author = "Nikos Papanikolaou and Y. Liu and Sotirios Stathakis and C. Shi",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1118/1.2760810",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "2435--2436",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐151

T2 - Development of a Toolkit for Dose Verification and Comparison Between Treatment Planning Systems

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

AU - Liu, Y.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Shi, C.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Purpose: To develop a generalized software toolkit for comprehensive dosimetric analysis and comparison between treatment planning systems. Method and Materials: A toolkit was developed for the purpose of manipulating the 3D dose matrix generated by the CrossPlan treatment planning system (TPS) for a dual micro‐multileaf collimator (mMLC) and the Pinnacle3 TPS. The toolkit can convert 3D dose matrices calculated by CrossPlan and export it to Pinnacle3. Two different trials based on the same patient anatomy and beam arrangement were planned and compared between the two TPS. The dose matrices by both CrossPlan and Pinnacle3 TPS were evaluated and analyzed. The comparison parameters included isodose overlay, dose profiles, gamma analysis, dose volume histogram and 3D dose difference. In addition, the RIT dose analysis tools were used to evaluate the isodose overlay, gamma analysis, dose profiles and dose difference between the two TPS. This application was extended to other TPS including Monte Carlo (EGS and MCNP). Results: The toolkit was effective in converting the 3D dose matrix calculated by CrossPlan and subsequently exporting it to Pinnacle3. The 50%, 70% and 90% isodose lines show good agreement and the dose profiles match closely. The gamma analysis showed a good agreement, with only 2% of the gamma value exceeding the pass/fail threshold (gamma=1). The maximum dose difference was less than 11 % at the penumbra of the field edge and the mean dose difference was less than 1%. Conclusion: A toolkit has been developed for processing the conversion and exportation of 3D dose matrices generated by a TPS. The Pinnacle3 and CrossPlan TPS were used to demonstrate the utilization of the toolkit. Overall, the comparison based on various dosimetric indices showed good agreement between the Pinnacle and CrossPlan TPS.

AB - Purpose: To develop a generalized software toolkit for comprehensive dosimetric analysis and comparison between treatment planning systems. Method and Materials: A toolkit was developed for the purpose of manipulating the 3D dose matrix generated by the CrossPlan treatment planning system (TPS) for a dual micro‐multileaf collimator (mMLC) and the Pinnacle3 TPS. The toolkit can convert 3D dose matrices calculated by CrossPlan and export it to Pinnacle3. Two different trials based on the same patient anatomy and beam arrangement were planned and compared between the two TPS. The dose matrices by both CrossPlan and Pinnacle3 TPS were evaluated and analyzed. The comparison parameters included isodose overlay, dose profiles, gamma analysis, dose volume histogram and 3D dose difference. In addition, the RIT dose analysis tools were used to evaluate the isodose overlay, gamma analysis, dose profiles and dose difference between the two TPS. This application was extended to other TPS including Monte Carlo (EGS and MCNP). Results: The toolkit was effective in converting the 3D dose matrix calculated by CrossPlan and subsequently exporting it to Pinnacle3. The 50%, 70% and 90% isodose lines show good agreement and the dose profiles match closely. The gamma analysis showed a good agreement, with only 2% of the gamma value exceeding the pass/fail threshold (gamma=1). The maximum dose difference was less than 11 % at the penumbra of the field edge and the mean dose difference was less than 1%. Conclusion: A toolkit has been developed for processing the conversion and exportation of 3D dose matrices generated by a TPS. The Pinnacle3 and CrossPlan TPS were used to demonstrate the utilization of the toolkit. Overall, the comparison based on various dosimetric indices showed good agreement between the Pinnacle and CrossPlan TPS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024814681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024814681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2760810

DO - 10.1118/1.2760810

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024814681

VL - 34

SP - 2435

EP - 2436

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -