Modeling treatment couches in the Pinnacle treatment planning system: Especially important for arc therapy

This study is to demonstrate the importance and a method of properly modeling the treatment couch for dose calculation in patient treatment using arc therapy. The 2 treatment couch tops-Aktina AK550 and Elekta iBEAM evo-of Elekta LINACs were scanned using Philips Brilliance Big Bore CT Simulator. Various parts of the couch tops were contoured, and their densities were measured and recorded on the Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) using the established computed tomography density table. These contours were saved as organ models to be placed beneath the patient during planning. Relative attenuation measurements were performed following procedures outlined by TG-176 as well as absolute dose comparison of static fields of 10 × 10 cm2 that were delivered through the couch tops with that calculated in the TPS with the couch models. A total of 10 random arc therapy treatment plans (5 volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and 5 stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]), using 24 beams, were selected for this study. All selected plans were calculated with and without couch modeling. Each beam was evaluated using the Delta4 dosimetry system (Delta4). The Student t-test was used to determine statistical significance. Independent reviews were exploited as per the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core head and neck credentialing phantom. The selected plans were calculated on the actual patient anatomies with and without couch modeling to determine potential clinical effects. Large relative beam attenuations were noted dependent on which part of the couch top beams were passing through. Substantial improvements were also noted for static fields both calculated with the TPS and delivered physically when the couch models were included in the calculation. A statistically significant increase in agreement was noted for dose difference, distance to agreement, and γ-analysis with the Delta4 on VMAT and SBRT plans. A credentialing review showed improvement in treatment delivery after couch modeling with both thermoluminescent dosimeter doses and film analysis. Furthermore, analysis of treatment plans with and without using the couch model showed a statistically significant reduction in planning target volume coverage and increase in skin dose. In conclusion, ignoring the treatment couch, a common practice when generating a patient treatment plan, can overestimate the dose delivered especially for arc therapy. This work shows that explicitly modeling the couch during planning can meaningfully improve the agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions. Because of this project, we have implemented the couch models clinically across all treatment plans.