Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation‐based radiation therapy treatment planning: Report of AAPM Task Group 157

Charlie, C.‐M.; Chetty, Indrin J.; Deng, Jun; Faddegon, Bruce A.; Jiang, Steve B; Li, Jinsheng; Seuntjens, Jan; Siebers, Jeffrey V.; Traneus, E.

doi:10.1002/mp.13898

Cited by 44 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when comparing the dose calculated between different studies, the beam model used should be taken into account in order to avoid biased comparisons, since beam parameters, tumour size and location may all have a non-negligible impact on the dose calculation accuracy depending on the beam model used [24]. Guidelines to follow for the commissioning of a new TPS are provided in [25], but in order to have a standard beam model for dose calculation (i.e. an unbiased comparison), beam data should be provided.…”

Section: Treatment Planning Systems and Dose Calculation Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of dose calculation approaches with cone beam CT in photon and proton therapy

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose: The use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for performing dose calculations in radiation therapy has been widely investigated as it could provide a quantitative analysis of the dosimetric impact of changes in patients during the treatment. The aim of this review was to classify different techniques adopted to perform CBCT dose calculation and to report their dosimetric accuracy with respect to the metrics used. Methods and materials: A literature search was carried out in PubMed and ScienceDirect databases, based upon the following keywords: "cone beam computed tomography", "CBCT", "cone beam CT", "dose calculation", "accuracy". Sixty-nine peer-reviewed relevant articles were included in this review: thirty-one patient studies, fifteen phantom studies and twenty-three patient & phantom studies. Most studies were found to have focused on head and neck, lung and prostate cancers. Results: The techniques adopted to perform CBCT dose calculation have been grouped in six categories labelled as (1) pCT calibration, (2) CBCT calibration, (3) HU override, (4) Deformable image registration, (5) Dose deformation, and (6) Combined techniques. Differences between CBCT dose and reference dose were reported both for target volumes and OARs. Conclusions: A comparison among the available techniques for CBCT dose calculations is challenging as many variables are involved. Therefore, a set of reporting standards is recommended to enable meaningful comparisons among different studies. The accuracy of the results was strongly dependent on the image quality, regardless of the methods used, highlighting the need for dose validation and quality assurance standards. the results are highly variable due to different devices, protocols, datasets, metrics of comparison, treatment sites and treatment planning systems (TPS) being reported in the different studies. This wide variety in the dose reconstruction methodologies and reporting methods used in this expanding field has identified a need to review the current status of the field. This work considers the current

show abstract

Section: Treatment Planning Systems and Dose Calculation Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of dose calculation approaches with cone beam CT in photon and proton therapy

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The commissioning and validation of the independent, MCbased dose calculation engine for research or patient QA purposes is a time-consuming process that requires knowledgeable and experienced manpower. Only recently, standards for beam modeling and beam model commissioning for MC dose calculation-based radiation therapy treatment planning were proposed [30]. The experimental characterization of the proton beam properties (longitudinal and lateral profiles as well as dosimetric calibration) as a function of primary beam energy is facility dependent because different PBT centers use different accelerators, measurement methods, and TPS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commissioning of GPU–Accelerated Monte Carlo Code FRED for Clinical Applications in Proton Therapy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present commissioning and validation of Fred, a graphical processing unit (GPU)–accelerated Monte Carlo code, for two proton beam therapy facilities of different beam line design: CCB (Krakow, IBA) and EMORY (Atlanta, Varian). We followed clinical acceptance tests required to approve the certified treatment planning system for clinical use. We implemented an automated and efficient procedure to build a parameter library characterizing the clinical proton pencil beam. Beam energy, energy spread, lateral propagation model, and a dosimetric calibration factor were parametrized based on measurements performed during the facility start-up. The Fred beam model was validated against commissioning and supplementary measurements performed with and without range shifter. We obtained 1) submillimeter agreement of Bragg peak shapes in water and lateral beam profiles in air and slab phantoms, 2) <2% dose agreement for spread out Bragg peaks of different ranges, 3) average gamma index (2%/2 mm) passing rate of >95% for >1000 patient verification measurements using a two-dimensional array of ionization chambers, and 4) gamma index passing rate of >99% for three-dimensional dose distributions computed with Fred and measured with an array of ionization chambers behind an anthropomorphic phantom. The results of example treatment planning study on >100 patients demonstrated that Fred simulations in computed tomography enable an accurate prediction of dose distribution in patient and application of Fred as second patient quality assurance tool. Computation of a patient treatment in a CT using 104 protons per pencil beam took on average 2′30 min with a tracking rate of 2.9×105p+/s. Fred was successfully commissioned and validated against the clinical beam model, showing that it could potentially be used in clinical routine. Thanks to high computational performance due to GPU acceleration and an automated beam model implementation method, the application of Fred is now possible for research or quality assurance purposes in most of the proton facilities.

show abstract

“…However, it should be noted that commercial MC TPSs are based on source models that are similar to those in conventional dose algorithms and subject to similar inaccuracies. 73 The potential for MC methods as an independent tool for radiotherapy treatment planning dose calculation and QA has been reviewed thoroughly in the AAPM TG 105 report. 74 This report highlighted that MC solutions provided substantially different results, particularly for calculation of dose in highly heterogeneous anatomy (lung), when compared to simple pencil-beam algorithms.…”

Section: Monte Carlo-based Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculationbased dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs. | REPORT OF AAPM TASK GROUP 219 ON INDEPENDENT CALCULATION-BASED DOSE/ MU VERIFICATION FOR IMRT

show abstract

Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation‐based radiation therapy treatment planning: Report of AAPM Task Group 157

Cited by 44 publications

References 114 publications

A review of dose calculation approaches with cone beam CT in photon and proton therapy

A review of dose calculation approaches with cone beam CT in photon and proton therapy

Commissioning of GPU–Accelerated Monte Carlo Code FRED for Clinical Applications in Proton Therapy

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About