Clinical implementation of a Monte Carlo treatment planning system

The purpose of this study is to perform dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system version 5.1. The Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening filter‐free photon modes and electron energies was used in this study. The dosimetric output of the new Agility head combined with the FFF photon modes warranted this investigation into the dosimetric accuracy prior to clinical usage. A model of the VersaHD linac was created in Monaco TPS by Elekta using commissioned beam data including percent depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors. A variety of 3D conformal fields were created in Monaco TPS on a combined Plastic water/Styrofoam phantom and validated against measurements with a calibrated ion chamber. Some of the parameters varied including source to surface distance, field size, wedges, gantry angle, and depth for all photon and electron energies. In addition, a series of step and shoot IMRT, VMAT test plans, and patient plans on various anatomical sites were verified against measurements on a Delta4 diode array. The agreement in point dose measurements was within 2% for all photon and electron energies in the homogeneous phantom and within 3% for photon energies in the heterogeneous phantom. The mean ± SD gamma passing rates of IMRT test fields yielded 93.8 ± 4.7% based on 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance‐to‐agreement criteria. Eight previously treated IMRT patient plans were replanned in Monaco TPS and five measurements on each yielded an average gamma passing rate of 95% with 6.7% confidence limit based on 3%, 3 mm gamma criteria. This investigation on dosimetric validation ensures accuracy of modeling VersaHD linac in Monaco TPS thereby improving patient safety.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator

Narayanasamy

Saenz²,

Defoor³

et al. 2017

“…Some current common practices to establish tissue characterization can introduce systematic errors in dose planning. Although density is often interpolated in a continuous way, the CT number scale is always divided into a finite number of subsets to link CT number to chemical elemental composition 1 , 2 . Usually, six or fewer media of average composition are defined (e.g., air, lung, fat, water, muscle and bone).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monte Carlo calculation based on hydrogen composition of the tissue for MV photon radiotherapy

Demol

Viard²,

Reynaert

2015

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that Monte Carlo treatment planning systems require tissue characterization (density and composition) as a function of CT number. A discrete set of tissue classes with a specific composition is introduced. In the current work we demonstrate that, for megavoltage photon radiotherapy, only the hydrogen content of the different tissues is of interest. This conclusion might have an impact on MRI‐based dose calculations and on MVCT calibration using tissue substitutes. A stoichiometric calibration was performed, grouping tissues with similar atomic composition into 15 dosimetrically equivalent subsets. To demonstrate the importance of hydrogen, a new scheme was derived, with correct hydrogen content, complemented by oxygen (all elements differing from hydrogen are replaced by oxygen). Mass attenuation coefficients and mass stopping powers for this scheme were calculated and compared to the original scheme. Twenty‐five CyberKnife treatment plans were recalculated by an in‐house developed Monte Carlo system using tissue density and hydrogen content derived from the CT images. The results were compared to Monte Carlo simulations using the original stoichiometric calibration. Between 300 keV and 3 MeV, the relative difference of mass attenuation coefficients is under 1% within all subsets. Between 10 keV and 20 MeV, the relative difference of mass stopping powers goes up to 5% in hard bone and remains below 2% for all other tissue subsets. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of the treatment plans present no visual difference between the two schemes. Relative differences of dose indexes D98,D95,D50,D05,D02, and Dmean were analyzed and a distribution centered around zero and of standard deviation below 2% (3σ) was established. On the other hand, once the hydrogen content is slightly modified, important dose differences are obtained. Monte Carlo dose planning in the field of megavoltage photon radiotherapy is fully achievable using only hydrogen content of tissues, a conclusion that might impact MRI dose calculation, but can also help selecting the optimal tissue substitutes when calibrating MVCT devices.PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.K‐, 87.57.Q‐

“…In the past decade, applications of MC simulation in radiation therapy treatment planning and dosimetry have made great progress 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 . It is now generally well accepted that MC is the most accurate dose calculation method because it can precisely model realistic radiation transport through a linac head, MLC, and patient anatomy 14 , 15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a dose verification system for Vero4DRT using Monte Carlo method

Ishihara

Sawada

Nakamura

et al. 2014

Vero4DRT is an innovative image‐guided radiotherapy system employing a C‐band X‐ray head with gimbal mechanics. The purposes of this study were to propose specific MC models of the linac head and multileaf collimator (MLC) for the Vero4DRT and to verify their accuracy. For a 6 MV photon beam delivered by the Vero4DRT, a simulation code was implemented using EGSnrc. The linac head model and the MLC model were simulated based on its specification. Next, the percent depth dose (PDD) and beam profiles at depths of 15, 100, and 200 mm were simulated under source‐to‐surface distance of 900 and 1000 mm. Field size was set to 150×150.15emmm2 at a depth of 100 mm. Each of the simulated dosimetric metrics was then compared with the corresponding measurements by a 0.125 cc ionization chamber. After that, intra‐ and interleaf leakage, tongue‐and‐groove, and rounded‐leaf profiles were simulated for the static MLC model. Meanwhile, film measurements were performed using EDR2 films under similar conditions to simulation. The measurement for the rounded‐leaf profile was performed using the water phantom and the ionization chamber. The leaf physical density and abutting leaf gap were adjusted to obtain good agreement between the simulated intra‐ and interleaf leakage profiles and measurements. For the MLC model in step‐and‐shoot cases, a pyramid and a prostate IMRT field were simulated, while film measurements were performed using EDR2. For the linac head, exclusive of MLC, the difference in PDD was <1.0% after the buildup region. The simulated beam profiles agreed to within 1.3% at each depth. The MLC model has been shown to reproduce dose measurements within 2.5% for static tests. The MLC is made of tungsten alloy with a purity of 95%. The leaf gap of 0.015 cm and the MLC physical density of 18.0.15emnormalg/.15emcm3, which provided the best agreement between the simulated and measured leaf leakage, were assigned to our MC model. As a result, the simulated step‐and‐shoot IMRT dose distributions agreed with the film measurements to within 3.3%, with exception of the penumbra region. We have developed specific MC models of the linac head and the MLC in the Vero4DRT system. The results have demonstrated that our MC models have high accuracy.PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.56.nk, 87.56.bd