Dose volume histogram comparison between ADAC Pinnacle and Nomos Corvus systems for IMRT.
ABSTRACT This paper compares dose volume histograms (DVHs) generated by the ADAC Pinnacle and the Nomos Corvus planning systems. Seven prostate cases and seven head and neck cases were selected for review. Plans computed on both systems possessed exactly the same anatomical contours and IMRT segments. The Pinnacle system used the collapsed cone convolution superposition, while Corvus employed a finite size pencil beam (FSPB) convolution. Prostate DVH results demonstrated similar DVH curves from both systems. For each structure, the ratio of Pinnacle dose value divided by Corvus value was calculated. The high dose structures (which might contain tumour) had ratios close to unity, while the low dose structures (the critical organs) had ratios farther away from unity. Almost all ratios were less than unity, indicating a systematic difference that Pinnacle calculated doses were lower than Corvus ones. Head and neck data provided similar findings. A possible cause for this discrepancy could be the beam modelling. The difference in DVH parameters that we discovered between the two systems was about the same order of magnitude as the measurement-computation difference. When low dose is critical, such difference may affect the clinical planning decision.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations can be accurate but are also computationally intensive. In contrast, convolution superposition (CS) offers faster and smoother results but by making approximations. We investigated MC denoising techniques, which use available convolution superposition results and new noise filtering methods to guide and accelerate MC calculations. Two main approaches were developed to combine CS information with MC denoising. In the first approach, the denoising result is iteratively updated by adding the denoised residual difference between the result and the MC image. Multi-scale methods were used (wavelets or contourlets) for denoising the residual. The iterations are initialized by the CS data. In the second approach, we used a frequency splitting technique by quadrature filtering to combine low frequency components derived from MC simulations with high frequency components derived from CS components. The rationale is to take the scattering tails as well as dose levels in the high-dose region from the MC calculations, which presumably more accurately incorporates scatter; high-frequency details are taken from CS calculations. 3D Butterworth filters were used to design the quadrature filters. The methods were demonstrated using anonymized clinical lung and head and neck cases. The MC dose distributions were calculated by the open-source dose planning method MC code with varying noise levels. Our results indicate that the frequency-splitting technique for incorporating CS-guided MC denoising is promising in terms of computational efficiency and noise reduction.Physics in Medicine and Biology 10/2007; 52(17):N375-85. · 2.70 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background and Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered by many to be the standard of care in the delivery of external-beam radiotherapy treatments to the prostate. The purpose of this study is to assess the validity of the purported benefits of IMRT.Materials and Methods: Treatment plans were produced for 10 patients using both 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and IMRT, utilising the dose constraints recommended by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0415 protocol. Three IMRT modalities used in this study were linear accelerator based IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and serial tomotherapy. The prescription to the target, 76 Gy, was the same for all plans.Results: In general the 3D-CRT plans satisfied the RTOG criteria for planning target volume (PTV) coverage, and met or bettered the dose criteria for the organs at risk. PTV coverage was more homogeneous for the IMRT plans than the 3D-CRT plans but not significantly improved.Conclusions: Technically, because the IMRT plans required greater effort for the optimisation, longer treatment times and higher monitor units, the use of IMRT for the fulfilment of the protocol’s dosimetric goals was not justified using these constraints.Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice 05/2010; 9(02):77 - 85.