Skip to main content

Analyzing the performance of the planning system by use of AAPM TG 119 test cases

Radiological Physics and Technology volume 9, pages 22–29 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Our objective in this study was to create AAPM TG 119 test plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the Monaco planning system. The results were compared with the published studies, and the performance of the Monaco planning system was analyzed. AAPM TG 119 proposed a set of test cases called multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck and C-shape to ascertain the overall accuracy of IMRT planning, measurement, and analysis. We used these test cases to investigate the performance of the Monaco planning system for the complex plans. For these test cases, we created IMRT plans with static multi-leaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic MLC by using 7–9 static beams as explained in TG-119. VMAT plans were also created with a 320° arc length and a single or double arc. The planning objectives and dose were set as described in TG 119. The dose prescriptions for multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck, and C-shape were taken as 50, 75.6, 50 and 50 Gy, respectively. All plans were compared with the results of TG 119 and the study done by Mynampati et al. Point dose and fluence measurements were done with a CC13 chamber and ArcCHECK phantom, respectively. Gamma analysis was done for the calculated and measured dose. Using the Monaco planning system, we achieved the goals mentioned in AAPM TG-119, and the plans were comparable to those of other studies. A comparison of point dose and fluence showed good results. From these results, we conclude that the performance of the Monaco planning system is good for complex plans.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Lambrecht M, Nevens D, Nuyts S. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. parotid-sparing 3D conformal radiotherapy. Effect on outcome and toxicity in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2013;189(3):223–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anand AK, Jain J, Negi PS, Chaudhoory AR, Sinha SN, Choudhury PS, Kumar R, Munjal RK. Can dose reduction to one parotid gland prevent xerostomia? A feasibility study for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2006;18(6):497–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyer A, Biggs P, Galvin J et al. Basic applications of multileaf collimators. Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 50. Madison: Medical Physics; 2001.

  4. Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(1):252–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee T, Chao P, Ting H, Lo S, Wang Y, Tuan C, Fang F, Su T. Comparative analysis of SmartArc-based dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12:3587.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holt A, Van Gestel D, Arends MP, Korevaar EW, Schuring D, Kunze-Busch MC, Louwe RJ, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij C. Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;31(8):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta JR, Ramsey CR, Salter BJ, Shi J, Xia P, Yue NJ, Xiao Y. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5359–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mynampati DK, Yaparpalvi R, Hong L, Kuo HC, Mah D. Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13(5):3382.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Allen Li X, Alber M, Deasy JO, Jackson A, Ken Jee KW, Marks LB, Martel MK, Mayo C, Moiseenko V, Nahum AE, Niemierko A, Semenenko VA, Yorke ED. The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: short report of the TG-166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1386–409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nithya L, Raj NA, Kumar A, Rathinamuthu S, Pandey MB. Comparative analysis of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for base of tongue cancer. J Med Phys. 2014;39(2):121–6.

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Ghosh-Laskar S, Agarwal JP, Upreti RR, Budrukkar A, Murthy V, Deshpande DD, Shrivastava SK, Dinshaw KA, Cozzi L. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92(1):111–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dharamshila Hospital and Research Centre, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi, 96, India

    L. Nithya, Sasikumar Rathinamuthu & Manish Bhushan Pandey

  2. School of Advanced Sciences, VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

    N. Arunai Nambi Raj

Authors
  1. L. Nithya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Arunai Nambi Raj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sasikumar Rathinamuthu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manish Bhushan Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Nithya.

Ethics declarations

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nithya, L., Arunai Nambi Raj, N., Rathinamuthu, S. et al. Analyzing the performance of the planning system by use of AAPM TG 119 test cases. Radiol Phys Technol 9, 22–29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-015-0328-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-015-0328-z

Keywords

  • TG 119
  • Static IMRT
  • Dynamic IMRT
  • VMAT
  • Monaco planning system