SU-E-T-579: On the Relative Sensitivity of Monte Carlo and Pencil Beam Dose Calculation Algorithms to CT Metal Artifacts in Volumetric-Modulated Arc Spine Radiosurgery (RS)

Authors

  • Wong M,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lee V,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Blanck O,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Leung R,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lee K,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Law G,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Tung S,

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Chan M

    1. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    2. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    3. University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Kiel
    4. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    5. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    6. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    7. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    8. Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong (S.A.R)
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose:

Investigating the relative sensitivity of Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms to low-Z (titanium) metallic artifacts is important for accurate and consistent dose reporting in post¬operative spinal RS.

Methods:

Sensitivity analysis of MC and PB dose calculation algorithms on the Monaco v.3.3 treatment planning system (Elekta CMS, Maryland Heights, MO, USA) was performed using CT images reconstructed without (plain) and with Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (OMAR; Philips Healthcare system, Cleveland, OH, USA). 6MV and 10MV volumetric-modulated arc (VMAT) RS plans were obtained for MC and PB on the plain and OMAR images (MC-plain/OMAR and PB-plain/OMAR).

Results:

Maximum differences in dose to 0.2cc (D0.2cc) of spinal cord and cord +2mm for 6MV and 10MV VMAT plans were 0.1Gy between MC-OMAR and MC-plain, and between PB-OMAR and PB-plain. Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage changed by 0.1±0.7% and 0.2±0.3% for 6MV and 10MV from MC-OMAR to MC-plain, and by 0.1±0.1% for both 6MV and 10 MV from PB-OMAR to PB-plain, respectively. In no case for both MC and PB the D0.2cc to spinal cord was found to exceed the planned tolerance changing from OMAR to plain CT in dose calculations.

Conclusion:

Dosimetric impacts of metallic artifacts caused by low-Z metallic spinal hardware (mainly titanium alloy) are not clinically important in VMAT-based spine RS, without significant dependence on dose calculation methods (MC and PB) and photon energy ≥ 6MV. There is no need to use one algorithm instead of the other to reduce uncertainty for dose reporting. The dose calculation method that should be used in spine RS shall be consistent with the usual clinical practice.

Ancillary