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

Ali Bahari, Seyed Salman Zakariaee, Hamed Rezaeejam, Ali Tarighatnia, Mikaeil Molazadeh
Author Information
  1. Ali Bahari: Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
  2. Seyed Salman Zakariaee: Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
  3. Hamed Rezaeejam: Department of Radiology Technology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
  4. Ali Tarighatnia: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
  5. Mikaeil Molazadeh: Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

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 cm) 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.

Keywords

References

  1. J Med Signals Sens. 2024 Nov 05;14:31 [PMID: 39691405]
  2. J Med Signals Sens. 2023 Jul 12;13(3):191-198 [PMID: 37622042]
  3. Phys Med. 2012 Jan;28(1):54-60 [PMID: 21486704]
  4. Radiol Oncol. 2015 Aug 21;49(3):291-8 [PMID: 26401136]
  5. Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4197-212 [PMID: 19810494]
  6. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1974 Mar;120(3):699-702 [PMID: 4206069]
  7. Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):1773-829 [PMID: 9800687]
  8. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Mar;18(2):113-124 [PMID: 28300380]
  9. Cancers (Basel). 2014 Dec 05;6(4):2356-68 [PMID: 25489937]
  10. Strahlenther Onkol. 2012 Jan;188(1):97-9 [PMID: 22234506]
  11. Oncol Rep. 2014 May;31(5):2195-205 [PMID: 24604635]
  12. Med Phys. 1994 Apr;21(4):581-618 [PMID: 8058027]
  13. J Med Phys. 2007 Jan;32(1):29-33 [PMID: 21217916]
  14. Phys Med Biol. 1985 Sep;30(9):985-91 [PMID: 4048281]
  15. J Med Signals Sens. 2019 Apr-Jun;9(2):117-122 [PMID: 31316905]
  16. Radiother Oncol. 2001 Aug;60(2):191-201 [PMID: 11439214]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0formulaEWAsICRU-24WedgeElektaMonacoTPSEffectiveAngleusingdifferentmeasuredaccuracydosecalculationTreatmentPlanningSystemtwoanalyticalpracticalplannedInternalFormulaBackground:radiotherapysystemsplayskeyroletreatmentcancerpatientsObjective:currentresearchaimedevaluateestimatingEWAmathematicalmethods:MaterialMethods:experimentalstudyfieldsizes5×510×1015×1520×2025×2530×30cmstandardangles15°30°45°60°computedmethodsaccordingconditionsoutlinedmeasurementscomparedresultsderivedResults:consistenterrorvalueless±05radiationfieldsmaximumdeviation±2computationalConclusion:Elekta-basedmethoddemonstratesgoodagreementexhibitedgreatestdiscrepanciesAssessmentDoseCalculationAccuracyWedgedFieldsTwoDifferentAnalyticalMethodsRadiometryRadiotherapyX-Rays

Similar Articles

Cited By