Determining the incident electron fluence for Monte Carlo‐based photon treatment planning using a standard measured data set

This paper presents an alternative method to tune Monte Carlo electron beam parameters to match measured data using a minimal set of variables in order to reduce the model setup time prior to clinical implementation of the model. Monte Carlo calculations provide the possibility of a powerful treatment planning verification technique. The nonstandardized and nonautomated process of tuning the required accelerator model is one of the reasons for delays in the clinical implementation of Monte Carlo techniques. This work aims to establish and verify an alternative tuning method that can be carried out in a minimal amount of time, allowing it to be easily implemented in a clinical setting by personnel with minimal experience with Monte Carlo methods. This tuned model can then be incorporated into the MMCTP system to allow the system to be used as a second dose calculation check for IMRT plans. The technique proposed was used to establish the primary electron beam parameters for accelerator models for the Varian Clinac 2100 6 MV photon beam using the BEAMnrc Monte Carlo system. The method is intended to provide a clear, direct, and efficient process for tuning an accelerator model using readily available clinical quality assurance data. The tuning provides a refined model, which agrees with measured dose profile curves within 1.5% outside the penumbra or 3 mm in the penumbra, for square fields with sides of 3 cm up to 30 cm. These models can then be employed as the basis for Monte Carlo recalculations of dose distributions, using the MMCTP system, for clinical treatment plans, providing an invaluable assessment tool. This was tested on six IMRT plans and compared to the measurements performed for the pretreatment QA process. These Monte Carlo values for the average dose to the chamber volume agreed with measurements to within 0.6%.PACS number: 87.55.km

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation into the use of MMCTP to tune accelerator source parameters and testing its clinical application

Conneely

Alexander

Stroian

et al. 2013

“…Many researchers have achieved good agreement with measurements using Gaussian‐shaped electron beam models 27 , 28 , 29 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…In this study, the mean energy of the incident electron beam on the target and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the radial intensity distribution were chosen to match the measurement results based upon previously published works 27 , 28 , 29 . The mean energy of the incident electron beam varied from 5.5 to 7.0 MeV in steps of 0.1 MeV.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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

“…However, those approaches require sophisticated and precise modeling of all components in the beam delivery systems and running time‐consuming MC simulations. On top of that, the parameters of MC simulations are generally tuned to match the in‐water measurements; (8) when the investigated detector has a different composition from water, it is very likely the MC simulations have to be re‐run for that type of detector. The complexity of MC simulations makes the above approaches difficult to implement for inexperienced users.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration of a detector array through beam profile reconstruction with error‐locking

Wang

Chao

et al. 2014

An iterative method is proposed to calibrate radiation sensitivities of an arbitrary two‐dimensional (2D) array of detectors. The array is irradiated with a wide open‐field beam at the central position, as well as at laterally and longitudinal shifted positions; the 2D beam profile of the wide field is reconstructed iteratively from the ratios of shifted images to the central image. The propagation errors due to output variation and inaccurate array positioning are estimated and removed from the reconstructed beam profile by an error‐locking scheme with narrow open‐field irradiations. The beam profile is interpolated when necessary and then compared to raw detector responses to determine sensitivities. Two additional methods were implemented for comparison: 1) the commercial iterative calibration method for MapCHECK2 with translation and rotation operations; 2) a labor‐intensive noniterative method without the issue of error propagation. A MapCHECK2 2D detector array was used to validate the proposed method with the 6 MV photon beam from a Varian iX linear accelerator. All calibration methods were repeated three times. A total of 5, 9, and 29 irradiations were required to implement the commercial method, the proposed method and the noniterative method respectively. Moreover, a 5 mm positioning error was intentionally introduced into the calibration procedures of the commercial and the proposed method to test their robustness. Under the normal operation condition of the linear accelerator and with careful alignment of the MapCHECK2, the deviations of the calibrated sensitivities of the proposed method and commercial method with respect to the noniterative method were 0.30%±0.29% and 0.92%±0.63% respectively; when the 5 mm positioning error was presented, these two methods resulted in deviations of 0.40%±0.36% and 3.58%±1.94%, respectively. A patient study suggested that, due to this 5 mm positioning error, the mean DTA (dose to agreement) passing rate by the commercial method was 2.7% lower than that by the noniterative method, whereas the proposed method led to a comparable passing rate. It is evident from this study that the proposed iterative method leads to within 1% mean calibration results to established methods. It requires much fewer number of measurements than noniterative method and is more robust against the positioning error than the commercial iterative method. The method also eliminates the need of rotation operations and, therefore, is applicable to inline detector arrays without rotation function, such as electronic portal imager device (EPID).PACS number: 87.56.Fc