SU-E-T-534: Beam and MLC Commissioning and Assessment of Three Commercial Treatment Planning Systems

A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy

Objective

Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses.

Method

The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty‐five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses.

Results

The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 ± 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are −2.06 ± 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), −0.59 ± 1.71% for Eclipse and −1.69 ± 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P‐value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t‐test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 ± 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are −3.89 ± 2.79% for Raystation PB, −0.25 ± 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 ± 1.95% for Raystation MC.

Conclusion

Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within ±3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within ±3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.

Modeling and dosimetric performance evaluation of the RayStation treatment planning system

The physics modeling, dose calculation accuracy and plan quality assessment of the RayStation (v3.5) treatment planning system (TPS) is presented in this study, with appropriate comparisons to the more established Pinnacle (v9.2) TPS. Modeling and validation for the Elekta MLCi and Agility beam models resulted in a good match to treatment machine-measured data based on tolerances of 3% for in-field and out-of-field regions, 10% for buildup and penumbral regions, and a gamma 2%/2mm dose/distance acceptance criteria. TPS commissioning using a wide range of appropriately selected dosimetry equipment, and following published guidelines, established the MLC modeling and dose calculation accuracy to be within standard tolerances for all tests performed. In both homogeneous and heterogeneous mediums, central axis calculations agreed with measurements within 2% for open fields and 3% for wedged fields, and within 4% off-axis. Treatment plan comparisons for identical clinical goals were made to Pinnacle for the following complex clinical cases: hypofractionated non-small cell lung carcinoma, head and neck, stereotactic spine, as well as for several standard clinical cases comprising of prostate, brain, and breast plans. DVHs, target, and critical organ doses, as well as measured point doses and gamma indices, applying both local and global (Van Dyk) normalization at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm (10% lower threshold) acceptance criteria for these composite plans were assessed. In addition 3DVH was used to compare the perturbed dose distributions to the TPS 3D dose distributions. For all 32 cases, the patients QA checks showed > 95% of pixels passing 3% global/3mm gamma.