Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Staff Members

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran

3 Department of Radiology Technology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

4 Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran

10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2409-1816

Abstract

Background: In radiotherapy, the accuracy of dose calculation systems plays a key role in the treatment of cancer patients.
Objective: The current research aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) in estimating the Effective Wedge Angle (EWA) using two different mathematical methods: Elekta formula and ICRU-24 formula.
Material and Methods: In this experimental study, EWAs for different field sizes (5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2) at standard angles (15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°) were computed by the Monaco TPS using two different analytical methods. The practical EWAs were measured according to the conditions outlined in the Elekta formula and the ICRU-24 formula, and these measurements were compared with the results derived from the TPS.
Results: The planned and measured EWAs are consistent with the Elekta formula, and the error value was less than ±0.5 in all radiation fields and EWAs. In the ICRU-24 formula, the maximum deviation was ±2.6° between the computational and practical EWAs. 
Conclusion: The Elekta-based analytical method demonstrates a good agreement between planned and measured EWAs, while the ICRU-24 formula exhibited the greatest discrepancies.

Highlights

Mikaeil Molazadeh (Google Scholar)

Keywords

References
  1. Gamit JS, Rao S, Nagesh J, Nair SS, Charan S, Dsouza RN, Sharan K, Chandraguthi S. Validation of Motorized Wedge Effective Isodose Angle with a 2D Array Detector. Iran J Med Phys. 2020;17(6):380-5. doi: 10.22038/ijmp.2019.38832.1508.
  2. Ling TC, Slater JM, Nookala P, Mifflin R, Grove R, Ly AM, et al. Analysis of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), Proton and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for Reducing Perioperative Cardiopulmonary Complications in Esophageal Cancer Patients. Cancers (Basel). 2014;6(4):2356-68. doi: 10.3390/cancers6042356. PubMed PMID: 25489937. PubMed PMCID: PMC4276971.
  3. Xie X, Ouyang S, Wang H, Yang W, Jin H, Hu B, Shen L. Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3D-CRT, IP-IMRT and hybrid IMRT. Oncol Rep. 2014;31(5):2195-205. doi: 10.3892/or.2014.3058. PubMed PMID: 24604635.
  4. Amaloo C, Nazareth DP, Kumaraswamy LK. Comparison of hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and double arc VMAT technique in the treatment of prostate cancer. Radiol Onco. 2015;49(3):291-8. doi: 10.1515/raon-2015-0018. PubMed PMID: 26401136. PubMed PMCID: PMC4577227.
  5. Zeinali A, Molazadeh M, Ganjgahi S, Saberi H. Collapsed cone superposition algorithm validation for chest wall tangential fields using virtual wedge filters. J Med Signals Sens. 2023;13(3):191-8. doi: 10.4103/jmss.jmss_7_22. PubMed PMID: 37622042. PubMed PMCID: PMC10445677.
  6. Hodapp N. The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol. 2012;188(1):97-9. doi: 10.1007/s00066-011-0015-x. PubMed PMID: 22234506.
  7. SK S, PA J. Comparison of Beam Profiles and Wedge Factors for Physical And Enhanced Dynamic Wedge. Int J Radiol Radiat Ther. 2018;5(1):59-65. doi: 10.15406/ijrrt.2018.05.00129.
  8. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin FF, Simon W, Dresser S, et al. Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators a. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197-212. doi: 10.1118/1.3190392. PubMed PMID: 19810494.
  9. 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(10):1773-829. doi: 10.1118/1.598373. PubMed PMID: 9800687.
  10. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):581-618. doi: 10.1118/1.597316. PubMed PMID: 8058027.
  11. Molazadeh M, Zeinali A, Robatjazi M, Shirazi A, Geraily G. Dosimetric characteristics of LinaTech DMLC H multi leaf collimator: Monte Carlo simulation and experimental study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(2):113-24. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12055. PubMed PMID: 28300380. PubMed PMCID: PMC5689964.
  12. Molazadeh M, Robatjazi M, Geraily G, Rezaeejam H, Zeinali A, Shirazi A. Three-dimensional IMRT QA of Monte Carlo and full scatter convolution algorithms based on 3D film dosimetry. Radiat Phys Chem. 2021;186:109528. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109528.
  13. Farhood B, Bahreyni Toossi M, Soleymanifard S. Assessment of dose calculation accuracy of tigrt treatment planning system for physical wedged fields in radiotherapy. Iran J Med Phys. 2016;13(3):146-53. doi: 10.22038/ijmp.2016.7958.
  14. Ilyas N, Farrukh S. Wedge angle confirmation in computer controlled wedge field. Adv J Sci Eng. 2020;1(4):113-7. doi: 10.22034/advjscieng20014113.
  15. Dawod T. Treatment planning validation for symmetric and asymmetric motorized wedged fields. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2015;3(1):030118. doi: 10.14319/ijcto.0301.18.
  16. Farrukh S, Ilyas N, Naveed M, Haseeb A, Bilal M, Iqbal J. Penumbral dose characteristics of physical and virtual wedge profiles. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2017;6(2):216-24. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.62020.
  17. Behjati M, Sohrabpour M, Shirmardi SP, Bouzarjomehri F, Shirazi MA. Dosimetric verification of the Elekta motorized wedge. Archives of Advances in Biosciences. 2018;9(3):32-41. doi: 10.22037/jps.v9i3.20231.
  18. Memon SA, Laghari NA, Mangi FH. Behaviour of wedges for different field sizes and depths. Pak J Nucl Med. 2017;7(1):20-27. doi: 10.24911/PJNMed.7.4.
  19. Raghavi S, Sadoughi HR, Ravari ME, Behmadi M. Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for ISOgray Treatment Planning System in Motorized Wedged Treatment Fields. J Med Signals Sens. 2024;14:31. doi: 10.4103/jmss.jmss_28_24. PubMed PMID: 39691405. PubMed PMCID: PMC11651387.
  20. Mehnati P, Biglari F, Jomehzadeh A. Interpretation of In-air Output Ratio of Wedged Fields in Different Measurement Conditions. J Med Signals Sens. 2019;9(2):117-22. doi: 10.4103/jmss.JMSS_36_18. PubMed PMID: 31316905. PubMed PMCID: PMC6601223.
  21. Ramya B, Srinidhi G, Aswathi R, Vincent J, Solomon J, Vidyasagar M, editors. Clinical implementation of Elekta’s motorized wedge system. International conference on Medical Physics and twenty ninth annual conference of Association of Medical Physicists of India: souvenir and book of abstracts; India: IAEA; 2008.
  22. Petti PL, Siddon RL. Effective wedge angles with a universal wedge. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30(9):985-91. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/30/9/010. PubMed PMID: 4048281.
  23. Elekta AB. Agility and Integrity™ R3.0, Instructions for Use - Clinical Mode. United Kingdom: Worldwide Product Manufacturing Center – Oncology; 2012. Document ID: 1016007 01.
  24. Mansfield CM, Suntharalingam N, Chow M. Proceedings: Experimental verification of a method for varying the effective angle of wedge filters. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1974;120(3):699-702. doi: 10.2214/ajr.120.3.699. PubMed PMID: 4206069.
  25. Shalek RJ. Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures. Med Phys. 1977;4(5):461. doi: 10.1118/1.594356.
  26. ICRU Report 24. Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by means of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures. International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements; United States: IAEA; 1976.
  27. Siemens AG. Digital Linear Accelerator, Physics Primer. Germany: Global Siemens Healthcare Headquarters; 2014. Document ID: T2-000.621.28.05.02.
  28. Kinhikar RA, Sharma S, Upreti R, Tambe CM, Deshpande DD. Characterizing and configuring motorized wedge for a new generation telecobalt machine in a treatment planning system. J Med Phys. 2007;32(1):29-33. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.31147. PubMed PMID: 21217916. PubMed PMCID: PMC3003885.
  29. Commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: Testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. Austria: IAEA; 2008.
  30. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: an International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standard of Absorbed Dose to Water. Technical Reports Series No. 398; Vienna: IAEA; 2000.
  31. Kumar R, Kar DC, Sharma SD, Mayya YS. Design, implementation and validation of a motorized wedge filter for a telecobalt machine (Bhabhatron-II). Phys Med. 2012;28(1):54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.03.001. PubMed PMID: 21486704.
  32. Venselaar J, Welleweerd H, Mijnheer B. Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. Radiother Oncol. 2001;60(2):191-201. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(01)00377-2. PubMed PMID: 11439214.
  33. Nurjannah S, Stevenly RJ, Subagiada K, Putri ER. Analysis of Wedge Angle Variations in the Treatment Planning System Based on Dose Volume Histogram on Ca Mammae Sinistra. Jurnal Inotera. 2024;9(2):420-7. doi: 10.31572/inotera.Vol9.Iss2.2024.ID352.
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
Volume 15, Issue 1
69
February 2025
Pages 37-48
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics