The aim of the study was to verify the accuracy of calculations of dose distributions for electron beams performed using the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) v.10.0.28 algorithm implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). Implementation of the objective of the study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage the influence of several parameters defined by the user on the calculation accuracy was assessed. After selecting a set of parameters for which the best results were obtained a series of tests were carried. The tests were carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Polish Society of Medical Physics (PSMP). The calculation and measurement of dose rate under reference conditions for semi quadratic and shaped fields were compared by individual cut-outs. We compared the calculated and measured percent depth doses, profiles and output factors for beams with an energy of 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 MeV, for semi quadratic fields and for three different SSDs 100, 110, and 120 cm. All tests were carried out for beams generated in the Varian 2300CD Clinac linear accelerator. The results obtained during the first stage of the study demonstrated that the highest compliance between the calculations and measurements were obtained for the mean statistical uncertainty equal to 1, and the parameter responsible for smoothing the statistical noise defined as medium. Comparisons were made showing similar compliance calculations and measurements for the calculation grid of 0.1 cm and 0.25 cm and therefore the remaining part of the study was carried out for these two grids.In stage 2 it was demonstrated that the use of calculation grid of 0.1 cm allows for greater compliance of calculations and measurements. For energy 12, 15 and 18 MeV discrepancies between calculations and measurements, in most cases, did not exceed the PSMP action levels. The biggest differences between measurements and calculations were obtained for 6 MeV energy, for smallest fields and large SSD distances. Despite these discrepancies between calculations the model was adopted for clinical use.

Purpose: A lot of effort is put into diminishing the CTV‐PTV margin and providing Adaptive RT in order to spare normal structures adjacent to the PTV. The purpose of this work was to test the hypothesis that bootstrap method can be used to estimate cumulated dose distribution, representing the whole treatment and that the quality of this estimation is independent on the CTV‐PTV margin. Methods: For 25 prostate patients treated in our clinic daily set‐up errors were recorded. For each patient treatment plans for three techniques were prepared: 3D‐CRT, IMRT and VMAT. We prepared plans for different CTV‐PTV margins, for asymmetric margin (0.4, 0.7, and 0.7 cm for lateral, cranial‐caudal, and AP respectively) and than for several symmetric ones of 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 cm. For each treatment plan and each fraction the dose distribution was calculated with the isocenter corrected for the set‐up error. Cumulated Dose Distribution (CDDall) was calculated as the sum of all dose distributions for each single fraction. Estimated Dose Distribution (EDDn) was calculated with bootstrap methodology. The EDDn and CDDall were compared using the 3D gamma concept (2mm and 2%) for each pair of dose distributions. The Result was treated as acceptable if at least 95% of voxels with gamma index ≤ 1 were obtained. Results: For 3D and IMRT EDDn calculated from at least 8 (3D) and 7 (IMRT) first fractions (EDDn>7 and EDDn>6), for all patients, but one, acceptable results were obtained. For VMAT our requirement was fulfilled for all patients and EDDn>2. Statistical tests show no significant difference between gamma results for different CTV‐PTV margins. Conclusion: The cumulated dose distribution CDDall can be estimated from at least 8 fractions regardless of the technique and CTV‐PTV margin. For VMAT technique the cumulated dose distribution may be estimated with 3 fractions.