Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
Published on: July 29, 2013
Comparing the accuracy of four-dimensional photon dose calculations with three-dimensional calculations using moving
Yevgeniy Y Vinogradskiy1, Peter Balter, David S Followill
1Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. yvinogra@mdanderson.org
Purpose:
Four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation algorithms, which explicitly incorporate respiratory motion in the calculation of doses, have the potential to improve the accuracy of dose calculations in thoracic treatment planning; however, they generally require greater computing power and resources than currently used for three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations. The purpose of this work was to quantify the increase in accuracy of 4D dose calculations versus 3D dose calculations.
Methods:
The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measurements made with two phantoms. Specifically, the authors used a rigid moving anthropomorphic thoracic phantom and an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom with a deformable lung insert. To incorporate a clinically relevant range of scenarios, they programed the phantoms to move and deform with two motion patterns: A sinusoidal motion pattern and an irregular motion pattern that was extracted from an actual patient's breathing profile. For each combination of phantom and motion pattern, three plans were created: A single-beam plan, a multiple-beam plan, and an intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan. Doses were calculated using 4D dose calculation methods as well as conventional 3D dose calculation methods. The rigid moving and deforming phantoms were irradiated according to the three treatment plans and doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film. The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measured-to-calculated TLD doses and a gamma analysis.
Results:
No significant differences were observed between the measured-to-calculated TLD ratios among 4D and 3D dose calculations. The gamma results revealed that 4D dose calculations had significantly greater percentage of pixels passing the 5%/3 mm criteria than 3D dose calculations.
Conclusions:
These results indicate no significant differences in the accuracy between the 4D and the 3D dose calculation methods inside the gross tumor volume. On the other hand, the film results demonstrated that the 4D dose calculations provided greater accuracy than 3D dose calculations in heterogeneous dose regions. The increase in accuracy of the 4D dose calculations was evident throughout the planning target volume.
