Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Dose Calculation Comparisons Between Monaco, Pinnacle and Eclipse Treatment Planning Systems

no image available
c Bosse

C Bosse1*, G Narayanasamy2 , N Kirby3 , P Mavroidis4 , N Papanikolaou5 , S Stathakis6 , (1) University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, (2) CME. DEPT./UTHSCSA, San Antonio, TX, (3) University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, (4) University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, (5) University of Texas HSC SA, San Antonio, TX, (6) Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX


SU-E-T-277 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) version 5.0 uses a Monte-Carlo based dose calculation engine. The aim of this study is to verify and compare the Monaco based dose calculations with both Pinnacle³ collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCC) and Eclipse analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) calculations.

Methods: For this study, previously treated SBRT lung, head and neck and abdomen patients were chosen to compare dose calculations between Pinnacle, Monaco and Eclipse. Plans were chosen from those that had been treated using the Elekta VersaHD or a NovalisTX linac. The plans included 3D conventional and IMRT beams using 6MV and 6MV Flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams. The original plans calculated with CCCS or AAA along with the recalculated ones using MC from the three TPS were exported into Velocity software for inter-comparison.

Results: To compare the dose calculations, Mean Lung Dose (MLD), lung V5 and V20 values, and PTV Heterogeneity indexes (HI) and Conformity indexes (CI) were all calculated and recorded from the dose volume histograms (DVH). For each patient, the CI values were identical but there were differences in all other parameters. The HI was computed higher by 5 and 4% for calculated plans AAA and CCCS respectively, compared to the MC ones. The DVH graphs showed large differences between the CCCS and AAA and Monaco for 3D FFF, VMAT and IMRT plans. Better DVH agreement between was observed for 3D conventional plans.

Conclusion: Better agreement was observed between CCCS and MC calculations than AAA and MC calculations. Those differences were more profound as the field size was decreasing and in the presence of inhomogeneities.

Contact Email: