A Monte Carlo approach to validation of FFF VMAT treatment plans for the TrueBeam linac

Linacs equipped with flattening filter‐free (FFF) megavoltage photon beams are now commercially available. However, the commissioning of FFF beams poses challenges that are not shared with traditional flattened megavoltage X‐ray beams. The planning system must model a beam that is peaked in the center and has an energy spectrum that is softer than the flattened beam. Removing the flattening filter also increases the maximum possible dose rates from 600 MU/min up to 2400 MU/min in some cases; this increase in dose rate affects the recombination correction factor, Pion, used during absolute dose calibration with ionization chambers. We present the first‐reported experience of commissioning, verification, and clinical use of the collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCCS) dose calculation algorithm for commercially available flattening filter‐free beams. Our commissioning data are compared to previously reported measurements and Monte Carlo studies of FFF beams. Commissioning was verified by making point‐dose measurement of test plans, irradiating the RPC lung phantom, and performing patient‐specific QA. The average point‐dose difference between calculations and measurements of all test plans and all patient specific QA measurements is 0.80%, and the RPC phantom absolute dose differences for the two thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in the phantom planning target volume (PTV) were 1% and 2%, respectively. One hundred percent (100%) of points in the RPC phantom films passed the RPC gamma criteria of 5% and 5 mm. Our results show that the CCCS algorithm can accurately model FFF beams and calculate SBRT dose distributions using those beams.PACS number: 87.55.kh

“…This pattern persists when we calculate output factors at

d_{max}

and is also reported by other authors for the TrueBeam 1 , 2 , 4 and Varian 21EX (16) . Our measured output factors agree better than 1% with those reported by Gete et al, (7) except for the

1 \times 1

field which is 1% different from their Monte Carlo calculation.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commissioning and verification of the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm for SBRT delivery using flattening filter‐free beams

Foster

Speiser

Solberg

2014

“…Although this approach may provide more uniform results across the research community, the limitation of a defined number of original particles may result in simulation bias if not validated. Previous studies have validated the accuracy of version‐1 of the Varian phase‐space files with measurement data 15 , 16 . The version‐1 phase‐space files are stored in a cylindrical space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Output factor comparison of Monte Carlo and measurement for Varian TrueBeam 6 MV and 10 MV flattening filter‐free stereotactic radiosurgery system

Cheng

Ning

Arora

et al. 2016

The dose measurements of the small field sizes, such as conical collimators used in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), are a significant challenge due to many factors including source occlusion, detector size limitation, and lack of lateral electronic equilibrium. One useful tool in dealing with the small field effect is Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. In this study, we report a comparison of Monte Carlo simulations and measurements of output factors for the Varian SRS system with conical collimators for energies of 6 MV flattening filter‐free (6 MV) and 10 MV flattening filter‐free (10 MV) on the TrueBeam accelerator. Monte Carlo simulations of Varian's SRS system for 6 MV and 10 MV photon energies with cones sizes of 17.5 mm, 15.0 mm, 12.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 7.5 mm, 5.0 mm, and 4.0 mm were performed using EGSnrc (release V4 2.4.0) codes. Varian's version‐2 phase‐space files for 6 MV and 10 MV of TrueBeam accelerator were utilized in the Monte Carlo simulations. Two small diode detectors Edge (Sun Nuclear) and Small Field Detector (SFD) (IBA Dosimetry) were applied to measure the output factors. Significant errors may result if detector correction factors are not applied to small field dosimetric measurements. Although it lacked the machine‐specific kQitalicclin,Qitalicmsrfitalicclin,fitalicmsr correction factors for diode detectors in this study, correction factors were applied utilizing published studies conducted under similar conditions. For cone diameters greater than or equal to 12.5 mm, the differences between output factors for the Edge detector, SFD detector, and MC simulations are within 3.0% for both energies. For cone diameters below 12.5 mm, output factors differences exhibit greater variations.PACS number(s): 87.55.k, 87.55.Qr

“…Properties of the FFF beams for these machines, usually determined during the commissioning process, have been subsequently reported 4 , 5 , 6 . Comparisons between Monte Carlo calculations and experimental measurements have been performed to confirm that simulations accurately model accelerator geometry 7 , 8 , 9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Clinically relevant investigation of flattening filter‐free skin dose

Guy

Karki

Sharma

et al. 2016

As flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams become readily available for treatment delivery in techniques such as SBRT, thorough investigation of skin dose from FFF photon beams is necessary under clinically relevant conditions. Using a parallel‐plate PTW Markus chamber placed in a custom water‐equivalent phantom, surface‐dose measurements were taken at 2×2,3×3,4×4,6×6,8×8,10×10,20×20, and 30×30 cm2 field sizes, at 80, 90, and 100 cm source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs), and with fields defined by jaws and multileaf collimator (MLC) using multiple beam energies (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF). The same set of measurements was repeated with the chamber at a reference depth of 10 cm. Each surface measurement was normalized by its corresponding reference depth measurement for analysis. The FFF surface doses at 100 cm SSD were higher than flattened surface doses by 45% at 2×2 cm2 to 13% at 20×20 cm2 for 6 MV energy. These surface dose differences varied to a greater degree as energy increased, ranging from +63% at 2×2 cm2 to −2% at 20×20 cm2 for 10 MV. At small field sizes, higher energy increased FFF surface dose relative to flattened surface dose; while at larger field sizes, relative FFF surface dose was higher for lower energies. At both energies investigated, decreasing SSD caused a decrease in the ratios of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose. Variability with SSD of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose differences increased with field size and ranged from 0% to 6%. The field size at which FFF and flattened beams gave the same skin dose increased with decreasing beam energy. Surface dose was higher with MLC fields compared to jaw fields under most conditions, with the difference reaching its maximum at a field size between 4×4 cm2 and 6×6 cm2 for a given energy and SSD. This study conveyed the magnitude of surface dose in a clinically meaningful manner by reporting results normalized to 10 cm depth dose instead of depth of dose maximum.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.N‐