Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms
Background: Inclusion of inhomogeneity corrections in intensity modulated small fields always makes conformal irradiation of lung tumor very complicated in accurate dose delivery.Objective: In the present study, the performance of five algorithms via Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Convolution, Fast Superposition and Superposition were evaluated in lung cancer Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy planning.Materials and Methods: Treatment plans for ten lung cancer patients previously planned on Monte Carlo algorithm were re-planned using same treatment planning indices (gantry angel, rank, power etc.) in other four algorithms.Results: The values of radiotherapy planning parameters such as Mean dose, volume of 95% isodose line, Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index for target, Maximum dose, Mean dose; %Volume receiving 20Gy or more by contralateral lung; % volume receiving 30 Gy or more; % volume receiving 25 Gy or more, Mean dose received by heart; %volume receiving 35Gy or more; %volume receiving 50Gy or more, Mean dose to Easophagous; % Volume receiving 45Gy or more, Maximum dose received by Spinal cord and Total monitor unit, Volume of 50 % isodose lines were recorded for all ten patients. Performance of different algorithms was also evaluated statistically.Conclusion: MC and PB algorithms found better as for tumor coverage, dose distribution homogeneity in Planning Target Volume and minimal dose to organ at risks are concerned. Superposition algorithms found to be better than convolution and fast superposition. In the case of tumors located centrally, it is recommended to use Monte Carlo algorithms for the optimal use of radiotherapy.Â
Verma, T. R, Painuly, N. K, Mishra, S. P, Shajahan, M., Singh, N., Bhatt, M. L. B., Jamal, N. & Pant, M. C. (2016). Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms. (e43224). Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 6(3), e43224
MLA
Verma, T. R, Painuly, N. K, Mishra, S. P, Shajahan, M., Singh, N., Bhatt, M. L. B., Jamal, N., & Pant, M. C. "Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms" .e43224 , Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 6, 3, 2016, e43224.
HARVARD
Verma, T. R, Painuly, N. K, Mishra, S. P, Shajahan, M., Singh, N., Bhatt, M. L. B., Jamal, N., & Pant, M. C. (2016). 'Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms', Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 6(3), e43224.
CHICAGO
Verma, T. R, Painuly, N. K, Mishra, S. P, Shajahan, M., Singh, N., Bhatt, M. L. B., Jamal, N. & Pant, M. C., "Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms." Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, 6 3 (2016): e43224,
VANCOUVER
Verma T. R, Painuly N. K, Mishra S. P, Shajahan M., Singh N., Bhatt M. L. B., Jamal N., Pant M. C. Evaluating Performance of Algorithms in Lung IMRT: A Comparison of Monte Carlo, Pencil Beam, Superposition, Fast Superposition and Convolution Algorithms. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2016;6(3):e43224.
