Estimating the dose differences nearby the metal implant by means of artificial contouring errors via Monaco and Geant4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31349/RevMexFis.68.051101Keywords:
Monte Carlo simulation, Monaco TPS, implant, contouringAbstract
Metal artifacts cause errors in the exact delineation of implants and dose changes in radiotherapy. In this study, the dose distribution differences in the region of interest (ROI) were calculated by deliberately making contouring errors from the real size of model implants by using both Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) and Geant4 toolkit. In Sec. 2, the computed tomography images were acquired by placing known uniform cylindrical geometry titanium (Ti6Al4V) and cobalt (CoCrMo) alloys into water phantoms separately. The metal alloys were artificially contoured as 2 mm contracted and expanded from their real dimensions in Monaco TPS. The plans were generated with 6 MV photon beams for contouring of three different sizes, real, contracted and expanded, for each metal alloy. In addition, all configurations were simulated in Geant4 by using the photon energy spectrum data of the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. Then, the 3D dose data obtained from ROIs near the implant in Monaco TPS and Geant4 were analyzed with in-house programs. In Sec. 3, the depth dose values of Geant4 were compatible with TPS calculations and ion chamber measurements. When the alloys were contoured to real dimensions, it was observed that the local isodose values have changed up to 15% in ROI. The mean dose values were found to be higher in contracted and lower in expanded contours. It was observed that ±2 mm error in contouring the implants changed the mean dose up to ±8%. In Sec. 4, this study emphasized that a few millimeters of error in contouring different implant materials can have a significant effect on dose distribution in a region close to the implant.
References
C. Reft et al., Dosimetric considerations for patients with HIP prostheses undergoing pelvic irradiation, Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 63, Med. Phys. 30 (2003) 1162, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1565113.
G.X. Ding, C.W. Yu, A study on beams passing through hip prosthesis for pelvic radiation treatment, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51 (2001) 1167, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02592-5.
M.B. Hazuka, G.S. Ibbott, J.J. Kinzie, Hip prostheses during pelvic irradiation: Effects and corrections, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 14 (1988) 1311, https://doi.org/10. 1016/0360-3016(88)90412-9.
P.J. Biggs, M.D. Russell, Effect of a femoral head prosthesis on megavoltage beam radiotherapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 14 (1988) 581, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(88)90279-9.
S.E. Schild, J.S. Robinow, H.E. Casale, L.P. Bellefontaine, S.J. Buskirk, Radiotherapy treatment planning for prostate cancer in patients with prosthetic hips, Med. Dosim. 17 (1992) 83, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0958-3947(92)90018-b.
R. Alecu, M. Alecu, T. Loomis, T. Ochran, T. He, Traditional and MLC based dose compensator design for patients with hip prostheses undergoing pelvic radiation therapy, Med. Dosim. 24 (1999) 33, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0958-3947(98)00044-2.
M. Carolan, P. Dao, C. Fox, P. Metcalfe, Effect of hip prostheses on radiotherapy dose, Australas. Radiol. 44 (2000) 290, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1673.2000.00816.x.
K-P. Chang, W-T. Lin, A-C. Shiau, Y-H. Chie, Dosimetric distribution of the surroundings of different dental crowns and implants during LINAC photon irradiation, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 104 (2014) 339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2013.11.026.
S. Spirydovich, L. Papiez, M. Langer, G. Sandison, V. Thai, High density dental materials and radiotherapy planning: Comparison of the dose predictions using superposition algorithm and fluence map Monte Carlo method with radiochromic film measurements, Radiother. Oncol. 81 (2006) 309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.10.010.
S.A.M. Lloyd, W. Ansbacher, Evaluation of an analytic linear Boltzmann transport equation solver for high-density inhomogeneities, Med. Phys. 40 (2013) 011707, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4769419.
E. Buffard, R. Gschwind, L. Makovicka, C. David, Monte Carlo calculations of the impact of a hip prosthesis on the dose distribution, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. with Mater. Atoms 251 (2006) 9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2006.05.031.
N. Ade, F.C.P. du Plessis, Monaco and film dosimetry of 3D CRT, IMRT and VMAT cases in a realistic pelvic prosthetic phantom, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 145 (2018) 50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2017.11.013
D.G. Kovacs et al., Metal artefact reduction for accurate tumour delineation in radiotherapy, Radiother. Oncol. 126 (2018) 479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.029.
K. Byrnes, A. Ford, N. Bennie, Verification of the Elekta Monaco TPS Monte Carlo in modelling radiation transmission through metals in a water equivalent phantom, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 42 (2019) 639, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00749-2.
T. Krieger, O.A. Sauer, Monte Carlo-versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom, Phys. Med. Biol. 50 (2005) 859, https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/010.
B.J. Mijnheer, The clinical basis for dosimetric accuracy in radiotherapy, In Radiation incidents: Uncertainties, errors and accidents in radiotherapy, British Institute of Radiology, (London, 1996) pp16.
G.H. Fletcher, Textbook of Radiotherapy, 3rd ed. (Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1980).
A. Bujold, T. Craig, D. Jaffray, L.A. Dawson, Image-Guided Radiotherapy: Has It Influenced Patient Outcomes?, Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 22 (2012) 50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.09.001.
N. Papanikolaou, J.J. Battista, A.L. Boyer, C. Kappas, E. Klein, T.R. Mackie, AAPM report 85: Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams, Report of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 65, (2004).
A. Bielajew, Monte Carlo Techniques in Radiation Therapy, (In: J. Seco, F. Verhaegen, editors, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013), pp. 3-16.
T. Han, J.K. Mikell, M. Salehpour, F. Mourtada, Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media, Med. Phys. 38 (2011) 2651, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3582690.
A. Fogliata et al., On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: Comparison with Monte Carlo calculations, Phys. Med. Biol. 52 (2007) 1363, https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/5/011.
E. Sterpin, M. Tomsej, B. De Smedt, N. Reynaert, S. Vynckier, Monte Carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator, Med. Phys. 34 (2007) 1665, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2727314.
N. Ade, F.C.P. du Plessis, Dose comparison between Gafchromic film, XiO, and Monaco treatment planning systems in a novel pelvic phantom that contains a titanium hip prosthesis, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 18 (2017) 162, https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12141.
R. Prabhakar, M. Kumar, S. Cheruliyil, S. Jayakumar, S. Balasubramanian, J. Cramb, Volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer patients with hip prosthesis, Reports Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 18 (2013) 209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2013.03.006.
W.L. Ng et al., Volumetric modulated arc therapy in prostate cancer patients with metallic hip prostheses in a UK centre, Reports Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 20 (2015) 273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2015.03.006.
J.D. Rijken, C.J. Colyer, Dose uncertainties associated with a set density override of unknown hip prosthetic composition, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 18 (2017) 301, https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12167.
M. Sasaki et al., Dosimetric Verification around High-density Materials for External Beam Radiotherapy, Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72 (2016) 735, https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2016 jsrt 72.9.735.
S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4 - A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 506 (2003) 250, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8.
IMPAC Medical System Inc, Monaco dose calculation technical reference, Sunnydale, 2013.
J.C. Martins et al., Optimization of Phase Space files from clinical linear accelerators, Phys. Medica 64 (2019) 54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.06.007.
Elekta AgilityTM and IntegrityTM R3.1., Instructions for UseClinical Mode, 2013, pp. 203–5.
J. Van Dyk, R.B. Barnett, J.E. Cygler, P.C. Shragge, Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 26 (1993) 261, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(93)90206-b
T. Kairn et al., Dosimetric effects of a high-density spinal implant, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 444 (2013) 012108, https://doi.org/doi:10.1088/1742-6596/444/1/012108.
F.M. Khan, The Physics of Radiation Theraphy, 5th ed. (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2014)
D. Akc¸ay, The effect of prosthesis implant materials on doses in external beam treatment comparison with different dose calculation algorithms and dosimetry in phantom model, Master’s Theses, Dokuz Eylul University, 2013.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Gizem Bakıcıerler Aybars, G. Şişman, K. Akgüngör
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Revista Mexicana de Física right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
