Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.

Q3 Medicine
Ali Bahari, Seyed Salman Zakariaee, Hamed Rezaeejam, Ali Tarighatnia, Mikaeil Molazadeh
{"title":"Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.","authors":"Ali Bahari, Seyed Salman Zakariaee, Hamed Rezaeejam, Ali Tarighatnia, Mikaeil Molazadeh","doi":"10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2409-1816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In radiotherapy, the accuracy of dose calculation systems plays a key role in the treatment of cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current research aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) in estimating the Effective Wedge Angle (EWA) using two different mathematical methods: Elekta formula and ICRU-24 formula.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this experimental study, EWAs for different field sizes (5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm<sup>2</sup>) at standard angles (15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°) were computed by the Monaco TPS using two different analytical methods. The practical EWAs were measured according to the conditions outlined in the Elekta formula and the ICRU-24 formula, and these measurements were compared with the results derived from the TPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The planned and measured EWAs are consistent with the Elekta formula, and the error value was less than ±0.5 in all radiation fields and EWAs. In the ICRU-24 formula, the maximum deviation was ±2.6° between the computational and practical EWAs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Elekta-based analytical method demonstrates a good agreement between planned and measured EWAs, while the ICRU-24 formula exhibited the greatest discrepancies.</p>","PeriodicalId":38035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering","volume":"15 1","pages":"37-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2409-1816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In radiotherapy, the accuracy of dose calculation systems plays a key role in the treatment of cancer patients.

Objective: The current research aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) in estimating the Effective Wedge Angle (EWA) using two different mathematical methods: Elekta formula and ICRU-24 formula.

Material and methods: In this experimental study, EWAs for different field sizes (5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm2) at standard angles (15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°) were computed by the Monaco TPS using two different analytical methods. The practical EWAs were measured according to the conditions outlined in the Elekta formula and the ICRU-24 formula, and these measurements were compared with the results derived from the TPS.

Results: The planned and measured EWAs are consistent with the Elekta formula, and the error value was less than ±0.5 in all radiation fields and EWAs. In the ICRU-24 formula, the maximum deviation was ±2.6° between the computational and practical EWAs.

Conclusion: The Elekta-based analytical method demonstrates a good agreement between planned and measured EWAs, while the ICRU-24 formula exhibited the greatest discrepancies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (JBPE) is a bimonthly peer-reviewed English-language journal that publishes high-quality basic sciences and clinical research (experimental or theoretical) broadly concerned with the relationship of physics to medicine and engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信