SU-E-T-608: Performance Comparison of Four Commercial Treatment Planning Systems Applied to Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

To compare the performances of four commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) used for the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Methods:

Ten patients of nasopharyngeal (4 cases), esophageal (3 cases) and cervical (3 cases) cancer were randomly selected from a 3-month IMRT plan pool at one radiotherapy center. For each patient, four IMRT plans were newly generated by using four commercial TPS (Corvus, Monaco, Pinnacle and Xio), and then verified with Matrixx (two-dimensional array/IBA Company) on Varian23EX accelerator. A pass rate (PR) calculated from the Gamma index by OminiPro IMRT 1.5 software was evaluated at four plan verification standards (1%/1mm, 2%/2mm, 3%/3mm, 4%/4mm and 5%/5mm) for each treatment plan. Overall and multiple pairwise comparisons of PRs were statistically conducted by analysis of covariance (ANOVA) F and LSD tests among four TPSs.

Results:

Overall significant (p>0.05) differences of PRs were found among four TPSs with F test values of 3.8 (p=0.02), 21.1(>0.01), 14.0 (>0.01), 8.3(>0.01) at standards of 1%/1mm to 4%/4mm respectively, except at 5%/5mm standard with 2.6 (p=0.06). All means (standard deviation) of PRs at 3%/3mm of 94.3 ± 3.3 (Corvus), 98.8 ± 0.8 (Monaco), 97.5± 1.7 (Pinnacle), 98.4 ± 1.0 (Xio) were above 90% and met clinical requirement. Multiple pairwise comparisons had not demonstrated a consistent low or high pattern on either TPS.

Conclusion:

Matrixx dose verification results show that the validation pass rates of Monaco and Xio plans are relatively higher than those of the other two; Pinnacle plan shows slight higher pass rate than Corvus plan; lowest pass rate was achieved by the Corvus plan among these four kinds of TPS.

Ancillary