Experimental verification and clinical implementation of a commercial Monte Carlo electron beam dose calculation algorithm

Fragoso, M; Pillai, S.; Solberg, Timothy D.; Chetty, Indrin J.

doi:10.1118/1.2839098

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though measurements could make this study more solid, we couldn't perform measurements and they will be performed in the future. However, various studies have already investigated the accuracy of dose calculation algorithms by comparison with measurements and through Monte Carlo simulations, including situations with inhomogeneity 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 . Based on previous studies of commercial dose calculation algorithms, the dosimetric information from the TPS used in this study seems to be reliable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of treatment plans using various treatment techniques for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of feet

Park

Kim

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the plan qualities of various treatment modalities for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of the foot. A total of six virtual targets were generated on the skin of the foot in CT images. Five types of treatment plans were generated using photon beams (PB), electron beams (EB), high‐dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy with a Freiburg flap applicator, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Plans for each of the six targets (single‐target plans) and also for the combined target consisting of the six single targets combined (multitarget plans) were generated. Dose‐volumetric analysis was performed for the targets and normal tissues. The averaged conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) values for each single target using PB, EB, HDR, IMRT, and VMAT techniques were 1.97, 2.39, 1.60, 4.60, and 0.80 and 1.05, 1.11, 1.52, 1.04, and 1.04, respectively. For the multitarget, the CI values were 3.99, 5.08, 1.38, 1.95, and 0.84, and the values of HI were 1.10, 1.36, 1.43, 1.06, and 1.04, respectively. The averaged mean doses to normal tissue were 2.5, 2.7, 3.6, 1.7, and 2.9 Gy for single‐target plans, and 21.3, 14.6, 14.2, 14.3, and 13.0 Gy for the multitarget plans, respectively. The VMAT demonstrated dosimetric advantages and better treatment efficiency over other techniques for the radiotherapy of multifocal skin disease of the feet.PACS number: 87.55.dk

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of treatment plans using various treatment techniques for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of feet

Park

Kim

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, several vendors are also developing commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning systems that employ various techniques to speed calculation times. [16][17][18][19][20] Although calculations times have been considerably reduced, these systems still require orders of magnitude more computation time as well as vendorsupplied hardware.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the final aperture superposition technique to calculate electron output factors and depth dose curves

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The final aperture superposition technique (FAST) is a method to reproduce rapidly the electron-beam depth dose curves and output factors that would be calculated by a full Monte Carlo simulation. FAST uses precalculated Monte Carlo-based differential dose arrays and performs a superposition of open and shielded contributions to account for arbitrarily shaped insert openings. The objective of this work was to refine and validate the accuracy of the FAST method for a full range of treatment parameters. Compared to full simulations, raw FAST calculations tended to underestimate dose near the surface deposited by particles that crossed the shield-opening interface of the insert. In this study, a set of empirical correction curves was derived to reduce the errors from this "collimator effect." FAST and full simulation calculations were compared for every combination of six beam energies (6-21 MeV), four applicator sizes (10-25 cm), and two source-to-surface distances (SSDs) (100 and 110 cm). Validation tests were performed for a total of 192 fields using four sample insert openings: an open insert and 2, 3, and 5 cm diameter circular openings. Calculations were also performed for four patient inserts with irregularly shaped openings. Using the empirical correction curves, systematic errors were reduced, resulting in mean dose differences of less than 1% of the maximum full simulation dose. FAST relative output factors reproduced full simulation output factors to within 3% for all configurations except for the 2 and 3 cm diameter openings for the 6 and 9 MeV beams at 110 cm SSD. The maximum shift between the FAST and full simulation depth dose curves in the 90%-80% fall-off region was less than 3 mm for 97% of the fields. For the patient insert calculations, differences in output factors and mean differences in depth dose curves were within 1.5% with maximum shifts of 1.5 mm in the 90%-80% fall-off region. A small set measurements also demonstrated 3% accuracy in FAST output factors except for a 5% deviation for a 2 cm diameter insert for the 6 MeV beam at 110 cm SSD. These results demonstrate that FAST can be used to provide output factors and depth dose curves for most clinical cases.

show abstract

“…It is widely accepted that Monte Carlo simulations are an accurate method for calculating dose distributions in radiation therapy, provided the radiation source and phantom are accurately modeled and a sufficient number of particle histories are simulated. ( 6 – 15 ) The superior accuracy of several Monte Carlo codes such as EGSnrc, PENELOPE, and DPM has been demonstrated for a wide range of materials and energies. ( 16 – 21 ) However, the routine use of Monte Carlo simulations for external beam radiotherapy has been impeded by the long calculation time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm

Zhang

Nurushev

Burmeister

et al. 2013

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A commercial electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm has become available in Eclipse treatment planning system. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the eMC algorithm and investigate the clinical implementation of this system. The beam modeling of the eMC algorithm was performed for beam energies of 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV for a Varian Trilogy and all available applicator sizes in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The accuracy of the eMC algorithm was evaluated in a homogeneous water phantom, solid water phantoms containing lung and bone materials, and an anthropomorphic phantom. In addition, dose calculation accuracy was compared between pencil beam (PB) and eMC algorithms in the same treatment planning system for heterogeneous phantoms. The overall agreement between eMC calculations and measurements was within 3%/2 mm, while the PB algorithm had large errors (up to 25%) in predicting dose distributions in the presence of inhomogeneities such as bone and lung. The clinical implementation of the eMC algorithm was investigated by performing treatment planning for 15 patients with lesions in the head and neck, breast, chest wall, and sternum. The dose distributions were calculated using PB and eMC algorithms with no smoothing and all three levels of 3D Gaussian smoothing for comparison. Based on a routine electron beam therapy prescription method, the number of eMC calculated monitor units (MUs) was found to increase with increased 3D Gaussian smoothing levels. 3D Gaussian smoothing greatly improved the visual usability of dose distributions and produced better target coverage. Differences of calculated MUs and dose distributions between eMC and PB algorithms could be significant when oblique beam incidence, surface irregularities, and heterogeneous tissues were present in the treatment plans. In our patient cases, monitor unit differences of up to 7% were observed between PB and eMC algorithms. Monitor unit calculations were also preformed based on point‐dose prescription. The eMC algorithm calculation was characterized by deeper penetration in the low‐density regions, such as lung and air cavities. As a result, the mean dose in the low‐density regions was underestimated using PB algorithm. The eMC computation time ranged from 5 min to 66 min on a single 2.66 GHz desktop, which is comparable with PB algorithm calculation time for the same resolution level.PACS number: 87.55.K‐

show abstract

Experimental verification and clinical implementation of a commercial Monte Carlo electron beam dose calculation algorithm

Cited by 29 publications

References 29 publications

Evaluation of treatment plans using various treatment techniques for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of feet

Evaluation of treatment plans using various treatment techniques for the radiotherapy of cutaneous Kaposi's sarcoma developed on the skin of feet

Validation of the final aperture superposition technique to calculate electron output factors and depth dose curves

Comprehensive evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About