SU‐E‐T‐430

Planning and Dosimetric Comparison of the Gamma Knife Convolution and TMR 10 Algorithms

J. Cates, R. Drzymala, Enrique Izaguirre, B. Sun

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the dose distributions for identical treatment plans calculated by the Gamma Knife TMR 10 and convolution algorithms and measured with film dosimetry. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom was CT imaged with EBT2 film placed between each of seven axial sections. The resulting data set was used to plan three 16mm collimated targets on the Gamma Knife Perfexion, with each target centered on a film plane. Target 1 was placed within a homogeneous region while Targets 2 and 3 were placed in heterogeneous regions, i.e. tissue‐air and bone‐tissue interfaces, respectively. Plans using the same targets were made using both the TMR 10 and convolution algorithms. The prescription was delivered to the phantom using the TMR 10 treatment plans after which the convolution treatment plans were adjusted to Result in identical treatment times, thus ensuring identical dose delivery. Film dosimetry was done to determine actual dose delivered at target center and was compared to the predicted dose for each algorithm. Results: While there was strong correlation between both algorithms, the convolution algorithm predicted a higher delivered maximum dose than TMR 10, up to 2.5% higher in homogeneous tissue and up to 7% near an air cavity. Film dosimetry results were consistent with the convolution algorithm predictions, with an error of less than three percent. Conclusion: The Gamma Knife convolution algorithm predicts delivered dose to a clinically acceptable level, which was confirmed by film dosimetry. However, film in an anthropomorphic head phantom may not be adequate to measure the most significant differences between the two algorithms. Precise stereotactic treatments will require precise dosimetry, and a phantom developed specifically with Gamma Knife geometry in mind may be necessary to fully characterize the dosimetry at anatomy interfaces.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)304
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Film Dosimetry
Head
Motion Pictures
Prescriptions
Anatomy
Air

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐430 : Planning and Dosimetric Comparison of the Gamma Knife Convolution and TMR 10 Algorithms. / Cates, J.; Drzymala, R.; Izaguirre, Enrique; Sun, B.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8b5a67e8ef274047b0c05b94dae49ea0,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐430: Planning and Dosimetric Comparison of the Gamma Knife Convolution and TMR 10 Algorithms",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the dose distributions for identical treatment plans calculated by the Gamma Knife TMR 10 and convolution algorithms and measured with film dosimetry. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom was CT imaged with EBT2 film placed between each of seven axial sections. The resulting data set was used to plan three 16mm collimated targets on the Gamma Knife Perfexion, with each target centered on a film plane. Target 1 was placed within a homogeneous region while Targets 2 and 3 were placed in heterogeneous regions, i.e. tissue‐air and bone‐tissue interfaces, respectively. Plans using the same targets were made using both the TMR 10 and convolution algorithms. The prescription was delivered to the phantom using the TMR 10 treatment plans after which the convolution treatment plans were adjusted to Result in identical treatment times, thus ensuring identical dose delivery. Film dosimetry was done to determine actual dose delivered at target center and was compared to the predicted dose for each algorithm. Results: While there was strong correlation between both algorithms, the convolution algorithm predicted a higher delivered maximum dose than TMR 10, up to 2.5{\%} higher in homogeneous tissue and up to 7{\%} near an air cavity. Film dosimetry results were consistent with the convolution algorithm predictions, with an error of less than three percent. Conclusion: The Gamma Knife convolution algorithm predicts delivered dose to a clinically acceptable level, which was confirmed by film dosimetry. However, film in an anthropomorphic head phantom may not be adequate to measure the most significant differences between the two algorithms. Precise stereotactic treatments will require precise dosimetry, and a phantom developed specifically with Gamma Knife geometry in mind may be necessary to fully characterize the dosimetry at anatomy interfaces.",
author = "J. Cates and R. Drzymala and Enrique Izaguirre and B. Sun",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814864",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "304",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐430

T2 - Planning and Dosimetric Comparison of the Gamma Knife Convolution and TMR 10 Algorithms

AU - Cates, J.

AU - Drzymala, R.

AU - Izaguirre, Enrique

AU - Sun, B.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: To compare the dose distributions for identical treatment plans calculated by the Gamma Knife TMR 10 and convolution algorithms and measured with film dosimetry. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom was CT imaged with EBT2 film placed between each of seven axial sections. The resulting data set was used to plan three 16mm collimated targets on the Gamma Knife Perfexion, with each target centered on a film plane. Target 1 was placed within a homogeneous region while Targets 2 and 3 were placed in heterogeneous regions, i.e. tissue‐air and bone‐tissue interfaces, respectively. Plans using the same targets were made using both the TMR 10 and convolution algorithms. The prescription was delivered to the phantom using the TMR 10 treatment plans after which the convolution treatment plans were adjusted to Result in identical treatment times, thus ensuring identical dose delivery. Film dosimetry was done to determine actual dose delivered at target center and was compared to the predicted dose for each algorithm. Results: While there was strong correlation between both algorithms, the convolution algorithm predicted a higher delivered maximum dose than TMR 10, up to 2.5% higher in homogeneous tissue and up to 7% near an air cavity. Film dosimetry results were consistent with the convolution algorithm predictions, with an error of less than three percent. Conclusion: The Gamma Knife convolution algorithm predicts delivered dose to a clinically acceptable level, which was confirmed by film dosimetry. However, film in an anthropomorphic head phantom may not be adequate to measure the most significant differences between the two algorithms. Precise stereotactic treatments will require precise dosimetry, and a phantom developed specifically with Gamma Knife geometry in mind may be necessary to fully characterize the dosimetry at anatomy interfaces.

AB - Purpose: To compare the dose distributions for identical treatment plans calculated by the Gamma Knife TMR 10 and convolution algorithms and measured with film dosimetry. Methods: An anthropomorphic head phantom was CT imaged with EBT2 film placed between each of seven axial sections. The resulting data set was used to plan three 16mm collimated targets on the Gamma Knife Perfexion, with each target centered on a film plane. Target 1 was placed within a homogeneous region while Targets 2 and 3 were placed in heterogeneous regions, i.e. tissue‐air and bone‐tissue interfaces, respectively. Plans using the same targets were made using both the TMR 10 and convolution algorithms. The prescription was delivered to the phantom using the TMR 10 treatment plans after which the convolution treatment plans were adjusted to Result in identical treatment times, thus ensuring identical dose delivery. Film dosimetry was done to determine actual dose delivered at target center and was compared to the predicted dose for each algorithm. Results: While there was strong correlation between both algorithms, the convolution algorithm predicted a higher delivered maximum dose than TMR 10, up to 2.5% higher in homogeneous tissue and up to 7% near an air cavity. Film dosimetry results were consistent with the convolution algorithm predictions, with an error of less than three percent. Conclusion: The Gamma Knife convolution algorithm predicts delivered dose to a clinically acceptable level, which was confirmed by film dosimetry. However, film in an anthropomorphic head phantom may not be adequate to measure the most significant differences between the two algorithms. Precise stereotactic treatments will require precise dosimetry, and a phantom developed specifically with Gamma Knife geometry in mind may be necessary to fully characterize the dosimetry at anatomy interfaces.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024782743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024782743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814864

DO - 10.1118/1.4814864

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 304

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -