SCIENCE

Comparison of IMRT techniques for head and neck cancer treatments based on two different mathematical algorithms Anisotropic analytical algorithm and convolution/superposition

  • 1 International Hospital Tirana, Medical Physics Department, Tirana, Albania
  • 2 Alma Mater Europaea Campus College ―REZONANCA‖, Prishtina, Kosovo; University Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, Kosovo
  • 3 Faculty of Mathematical and Natural Science, Department of Physics, University of Prishtina ―Hasan Prishtina‖, Prishtina, Kosovo
  • 4 University Clinical Center of Kosovo, Prishtina, Kosovo
  • 5 Alma Mater Europaea Campus College ―REZONANCA‖, Prishtina, Kosovo

Abstract

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is considered a crucial treatment for Head and Neck cancers for several key reasons related to the complexity of the tumor locations, the proximity to critical structure (organ at risk), and the need for precise dose delivery – distribution. Head and Neck cancer involve areas with highly heterogeneous tissues, which can present significant challenges for traditional radiation therapy techniques. IMRT addresses these challenges by offering highly conformal and precise radiation delivery that targets the tumor while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissue. In the context of IMRT, the mathematical algorithms, AAA (Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm) and Convolution/Superposition part of Monte Carlo Algorithm, are used in different aspects of treatment planning and dose calculation. Both algorithms are designs to compute the dose distribution in the body from radiation beams used IMRT, but they do so in distinct ways, and each has specific, use cases depending on the treatment and patient anatomy. Both algorithms, in IMRT are ultimately concerned with how radiation interacts with matter, specifically hoe energy deposition occurs in tissue as the radiation passes through them. The AAA and C/S algorithm consider tissues heterogeneity, but they model these interactions differently, which affects how they calculate the dose distribution. In our department of radiotherapy, of Amerikan Hospital Tirana we have installed and use both algorithms, in different treatment planning system which are developed by Varian and Elekta production company.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahnsejö A. (1989): Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med. Phys. Nr. 16: 577-592.
  2. Palmans H. et al., (2002): Absorbed Dose to Water Based Dosimetry versus Air Kerma Based Dosimetry for High- Energy Photon Beams: an Experimental Study, Phys. Med. Biol. Nr. 47: 421–40.
  3. Barret A., Dobbs J., Morris S., Roques T., (2009): Practical Radiotherapy Planning, Fourth Edition, London, England: 10-85
  4. Nordstrom F., (2012): Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy, London University, 20 – 58, Malmo 2012- 11-13
  5. Khan M.F., (2010): The Physics of Radiation Therapy, Fourth Edition, 5 – 67, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  6. European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (2001): Monitor Unit Calculation for High Energy Photon Beams, Practical Examples, Booklet No.3, 1-521, Belgium
  7. Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm Versus Pencil Beam Convolution for Treatment Planning of Breast Cancer: Implications for Target Coverage and Radiation Burden of Normal Tissue. Anticancer Research May 2015 vol. 35 no. 5 2841-2848.
  8. AAA Photon Dose Calculation Model in Eclipse™, Janne Sievinen RAD #7170A, Varian Medical Systems Finland Oy, Helsinki, Finland
  9. Tillikainen L, Helminen H, Torsti T, Siljamäki S, Alakuijala J, Pyyry J and Ulmer W: A 3D pencil beam based superposition algorithm for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Physics in Medicine and Biology 53 (2008) 3821–3839.

Article full text

Download PDF