Dosimetric Comparison of Different Tps Data In Periampullar Cancers With Radiotherapy Indication




TPS, Algorithm, Number of segments, Mu


Radiotherapy is applied by giving the radiation unit dose amount calculated by the treatment planning systems, shortly called TPS, which provides virtual simulation before the treatment, to the target volume in complex linear accelerator devices. Various treatment planning systems are used to calculate and apply the dose to the targeted tissue volume. TPSs contain various treatment planning algorithms. Thanks to these algorithms, the doses to be received by all organs and tissues in the body are simulated in three dimensions, and optimum treatment plans can be prepared in advance with the dose distributions obtained. Different treatment planning algorithms may have superior features against each other. For this purpose, dosimetric comparison between TPSs will be made by obtaining optimum treatment plans with patient data transferred to Prowess Panther treatment planning system and Eclipse treatment planning systems. In our study, Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Medical Faculty. 10 patients who came to the Radiation Oncology Department with the diagnosis of periampullary cancer will be discussed. For both planning, three-dimensional dose distributions will be calculated with Collapse Cone Convolution Superposition algorithm in Prowess Panther treatment planning system and Pencil Beam Convolution algorithm in Eclipse treatment planning system after optimization with reverse planning technique. As a result of the comparison with the two treatment plans, significant differences were detected in the treatment duration, plan segment numbers, number of MU units and doses of organs at risk (OAR). It was observed that Prowess TPS had a positive contribution to the treatment in the doses of organs at risk in the treatment plans compared by looking at the international dose acceptance criteria.

As a result; Since there may be differences in the dosimetric data obtained from the treatment planning systems that contain different algorithms, TPSs that shorten the treatment times and give less doses to the organs at risk should be preferred within the possibilities of the clinics.


Ding, H., Zhou, P., Xu, M., Chen, W., Li, Q., Chen, T., . . Zhang, Y. (2019). Combining endoscopic ultrasound and tumor markers improves the diagnostic yield on the etiology of common bile duct dilation secondary to periampullary pathologies. Annals of Translational Medicine, 7(14).

Huang, S., Wang, X., Hu, C., & Ying, H. (2013). Hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid dysfunction induced by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for adult patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Medical Oncology, 30(4), 1-11.

Lee, N., Xia, P., Quivey, J. M., Sultanem, K., Poon, I., Akazawa, C., . . . Fu, K. K. (2002). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update of the UCSF experience. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 53(1), 12-22.

Lee, T.-F., Fang, F.-M., Chao, P.-J., Su, T.-J., Wang, L. K., & Leung, S. W. (2008). Dosimetric comparisons of helical tomotherapy and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiotherapy and oncology, 89(1), 89-96.

Michalski, A., Atyeo, J., Cox, J., & Rinks, M. (2012). Inter‐and intra‐fraction motion during radiation therapy to the whole breast in the supine position: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 56(5), 499-509.

Petrova, D., Smickovska, S., & Lazarevska, E. (2017). Conformity index and homogeneity index of the postoperative whole breast radiotherapy. Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 5(6), 736.

Poppe, M. M., Narra, V., Yue, N. J., Zhou, J., Nelson, C., & Jabbour, S. K. (2011). A comparison of helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and 3D-conformal radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer. Medical Dosimetry, 36(4), 351-357.

Rosenwald, J., Gaboriaud, G., & Pontvert, D. (1999). Conformal radiotherapy: Principles and classification. Cancer radiotherapie: journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique, 3(5), 367-377.

Taylor, R., Opfermann, K., Jones, B. D., Terwilliger, L. E., McDonald, D. G., Ashenafi, M. S., . . . Marshall, D. T. (2012). Comparison of radiation treatment delivery for pancreatic cancer: Linac intensity‐modulated radiotherapy versus helical tomotherapy. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 56(3), 332-337.

Thapa, P. (2015). Epidemiology of pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Indian Journal of Surgery, 77(5), 358-361.

Verbakel, W. F., Cuijpers, J. P., Hoffmans, D., Bieker, M., Slotman, B. J., & Senan, S. (2009). Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 74(1), 252-259.

Wu, W. V., Wing-lun, A. M., & Wing-ki, W. F. (2010). Helical tomotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma—any advantages over conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy? Medical Dosimetry, 35(2), 122-127.



How to Cite

ŞAHİN, A. (2024). Dosimetric Comparison of Different Tps Data In Periampullar Cancers With Radiotherapy Indication. EJONS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 8(1), 76–82.