Elsevier

Clinical Oncology

Volume 16, Issue 2, April 2004, Pages 148-154
Clinical Oncology

Original Article
The Clinical Implications of the Collapsed Cone Planning Algorithm

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2003.11.014Get rights and content

Abstract

Aims: The accuracy of computer treatment planning systems is important in achieving clinically acceptable dose distributions. The pencil beam (PB) algorithm on Helax-TMS is currently used for all clinical treatment planning at the two centres involved in this study. However, it has been shown that the Helax-TMS collapsed cone (CC) algorithm is more accurate in regions of heterogeneity, such as the thorax, and head and neck. The aim of this study was to show the actual dose delivered to the patient when treating with a Helax-TMS PB plan, by using the corresponding Helax-TMS CC plan as the reference standard.

Materials and methods: Thirty PB treatment plans (for lung and oesophageal treatments) were recalculated using the CC algorithm, and plans were then compared.

Results: The number of monitor units required to deliver the prescription dose differed between algorithms, by up to 3.4%. In most cases, the CC algorithm calculated more monitor units than the PB, indicating under-dosage at the prescription point during treatment. The dose distributions also seemed less homogeneous when calculated using the CC algorithm. The minimum dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was lower than the PB plan suggested in every case, by up to 23.2%. ICRU homogeneity requirements (i.e. a minimum 95% of the prescription dose in the PTV) were not met in any of the cases. Even with some attempts at optimisation, conformance to these requirements was difficult.

Conclusion: The CC algorithm has several factors limiting its suitability for routine clinical use. However, it is an important milestone in radiotherapy treatment planning, and should be used to show expected changes in computer planned dose distributions with new accurate dose algorithms. It is worthwhile considering dose homogeneity requirements well before the advent of anticipated Monte Carlo-based models.

Introduction

It is recommended that the homogeneity of the dose distribution within a given target volume should be kept within +7% and −5% of the prescribed dose owing to the steep slopes of the dose-effect relationships for tumour control [1]. One step in achieving this degree of homogeneity is the accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPS) in calculating the delivered dose to the patient, both at the dose-specification point and in the surrounding tissue. It has been suggested that ideal levels for accuracy of dose planning algorithms are 2% in regions of low-dose gradient, and 2 mm in high-dose gradient regions [2].

In the two centres involved in the study, treatment plans are routinely calculated using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm on a Helax-TMS (version 6.1) radiotherapy TPS (Nucletron, Veenendaal, Netherlands) [3]. Despite meeting the above tolerances for treatment plans in regions of homogenous tissue density, previous studies have shown the limitations of the PB algorithm where heterogeneities exist 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. These limitations are due to the one-dimensional density correction of the PB algorithm, which does not accurately model the distribution of secondary electrons in regions of tissue heterogeneity. Doses are scaled according to the radiological depth along a ray-line from the radiation source to a calculation point, not accounting for the effects of side and backscattered radiation.

The collapsed cone (CC) algorithm is now available for clinical use on Helax-TMS 10, 11, 12. This more complex dose model was first described in 1987. However, it is so computationally intensive that commercial TPS have only recently become powerful enough to allow consideration of its use in the radiotherapy clinic. In contrast to the one-dimensional correction of the PB algorithm, the CC uses full three-dimensional density scaling to model the effects of nearby heterogeneities on dose-calculation points. This results in increased accuracy, particularly within regions of low-density tissue and steep density gradients (such as interfaces between lung and soft tissues).

A number of previous studies have verified the accuracy of the ADAC Pinnacle (ADAC Laboratories, Milpitas, U.S.A.) CC algorithm in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms 13, 14, 15. Francescon et al. [16]used patient computed tomography (CT) data to compare the Pinnacle CC algorithm with a Monte Carlo-based dose model, which is currently considered to be the gold standard of dose calculations. It was shown that, for breast and mediastinum treatments, the results of the two calculation methods are comparable, with no systematic differences.

The increased accuracy of dose calculations using the CC instead of the PB algorithm on the Helax-TMS TPS has also been shown 11, 17. Morgan et al. [17]used tissue substitutes to compare measured and calculated doses using both algorithms in several situations. The CC algorithm modelled the dose reduction in lung tissue and the secondary build-up of dose downstream of lung tissue at interfaces between lung and soft tissue more accurately than the PB algorithm. Further measurements showed that neither algorithm correctly models the dose at interfaces between bone and soft tissue, but it was indicated that the CC algorithm is more accurate within bone.

We are unaware of any studies that have examined the clinical implications of the differences in theaccuracy of the available algorithms. Overestimation of the dose to the planning target volume (PTV) in regions of low-density heterogeneities by the PB model could lead to under-dosage of the PTV. This may have implications on tumour control. We have therefore carried out a retrospective study in which clinical PB plans were recalculated using the CC algorithm. The differences in the calculated dose distributions were evaluated in terms of dose coverage of the PTV and doses to organs at risk (OARs). We have also assessed the differences in absolute isocentric dose, and discussed the effect of the results in future treatment planning.

Section snippets

Method

A series of 20 consecutive patients with CT plans were selected (10 Ca oesophagus and 10 Ca lung). The oesophagus treatments were all two-phase plans, giving a total of 30 plans. These treatment sites were chosen, as the PTV includes areas of tissue heterogeneity and might be expected to show the difference between the PB and CC algorithms to maximum effect. Consecutive patients were chosen to avoid any selection bias. In most cases, a clinician defined the gross tumour volume (GTV), and the

Absolute Dose to the Isocentre

The monitor units needed to deliver the prescribed dose to the dose-specification point differed by up to 3.4% depending on the algorithm used. In all but four cases, more monitor units were needed to deliver the prescribed dose when using CC. This is due to the overestimation of the dose by the PB in heterogeneous regions, as shown in previous phantom studies [17]. Having shown that the CC algorithm is more accurate, it is clear that, in these cases, the delivered dose is too low when using

Discussion

The results indicate that, in many cases where heterogeneities are present, the actual coverage of the PTV is less uniform than the PB plan indicates. This results in considerable under-dosage of the PTV in most treatments within the thorax. There seem to be three main causes of this under-dosing: (1) inclusion of low-density normal lung tissue in the PTV, which receives less dose than the higher density GTV; (2) decrease in scattered dose from surrounding low density tissue; and (3) secondary

Conclusion

The clinical impact of the new generation of dose calculation models has yet to be fully assessed. From this small study, it has been shown that current international guidelines for PTV dose homogeneity cannot routinely be satisfied when using the CC model in regions such as the thorax. This is mainly due to the presence of low-density tissue in the PTV and the secondary build-up of dose. However, the suitability of these guidelines in such regions may be questioned. It is unclear how to deal

References (22)

  • T Knöös et al.

    The dosimetric verification of a pencil beam treatment planning system

    Phys Med Biol

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text