Ali Bahari, Seyed Salman Zakariaee, Hamed Rezaeejam, Ali Tarighatnia, Mikaeil Molazadeh
{"title":"内楔场有效楔角摩纳哥治疗计划系统剂量计算精度的两种不同分析方法评价","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":"{\"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}","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}
Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
