摘要
目的用扩充型动态楔形板（EDW）模型比较Pinnacle^39．0治疗计划系统（TPS）的ACA算法和Eclipse7．3TPS的AAA、PBC算法的准确性。方法对瓦里安21EX6MVX线不同射野的EDW楔形因子（wF）进行实际测量和绘制二维剂量分布曲线，与2种TPS3种算法的计算结果进行相对误差和最大偏差比较。叮通过率分析平面剂量强度分布。结果对称野wF的ACA算法相对误差＜2．8％，AAA算法的＜1．0％，PBC算法的＜1．2％；非对称野wF的ACA算法相对误差高达19．4％，AAA算法的＜2．0％，PBC算法的＜3．0％。楔形方向所有射野ACA算法最大偏差为3．0％，AAA算法的为2．7％，PBC算法的为4．0％。对称野3种算法的通过率＞87％，在去除半影区后＞96％；非对称野的＞85％，在去除半影区后达95％。结论AAA、PBC算法对于对称和非对称野准确度均能满足临床需要，而ACA算法在非对称野条件下wF误差偏大，在实际临床中应尽量避免使用。
Objective To compare the accuracy of enhanced dynamic wedge （EDW） models of adaptive convolution algorithm （ACA） in Pinnacle3 9.0 and anisotropic analytical algorithm （ AAA）, and pencil beam convolution （PBC） algorithms in Eclipse7. 3 treatment planning systems （TPS）. Methods To evaluate the accuracy of the three algorithm models, we compared actual measurement values with TPS calculation values of EDW wedge factors under for different fields in which Varian-21EX 6 MV X-ray was applied, and also compared the actual dose distribution profile with that of TPS. Results The deviations of EDW wedge factors of symmetry fields and asymmetric fields are within 2. 8% and 19.4% for ACA in Pinnacle3 9. 0. Meanwhile, the deviations are 1.0% and 2.0% for AAA, 1.2% and 3.0% for PBC in Eclipse7.3. The deviations between measurement and calculation of all fields＇ profile for ACA is within 3% and within 2. 7% for AAA within 4. 0% for PBC in wedge direction. For the dose distributions, we evaluated the pass rates of three algorithms using gamma analysis. The gamma pass rates among all the three algorithms in symmetry and asymmetric fields are above 87% and 85% respectively. After the removal of the penumbra zone, the pass rates among all the three algorithms are above 96% in symmetry fields, and above 95% in asymmetric fields, respectively. Conclusions AAA and PBC algorithms in symmetric and asymmetric fields can meet the need of clinical applications. While, wedge factor of ACA should not be used in clinical due to its greater error in asymmetric fields.
出处
《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第5期468-470,共3页
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
