Monte Carlo modeling of a Novalis TX Varian 6 MV with HD‐120 multileaf collimator

Vazquez‐quino, L.; Massingill, B; Shi, Chengyu; Gutiérrez, Alonso N.; Esquivel, Carlos O.; Eng, Tony Y.; Papanikolaou, Nikos; Stathakis, Sotirios

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3960

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recycling was used in DOSXYZnrc and each particle was used no more than nine times. 40 In the interest of saving disk space on the shared VIMC computer system, only the first ten available Varian phase-spaces were summed to form the 6 and 12 MeV sources for EGSnrc, corresponding to 6.5 × 10 8 and 4.2 × 10 8 primary histories, respectively. In order to achieve acceptable statistics, all available phase-spaces were summed to form the 20 MeV phase-space source, corresponding to 7.0 × 10 8 primary histories.…”

Section: B1 Egsnrcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase–spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC‐shaped fields

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: B1 Egsnrcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase–spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC‐shaped fields

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The validation of this model was performed using a 6 MV flattened beam from a Varian Trilogy (

2300 C / D

) machine. Finally, Vazquez‐Quino et al (38) also modeled the HD120 using the BEAMnrc component VARMLC for a Varian Novalis Tx accelerator 6X flat beam.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monte Carlo modeling of HD120 multileaf collimator on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator for verification of 6X and 6X FFF VMAT SABR treatment plans

Bergman

Gete

Duzenli

et al. 2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Monte Carlo (MC) validation of the vendor‐supplied Varian TrueBeam 6 MV flattened (6X) phase‐space file and the first implementation of the Siebers‐Keall MC MLC model as applied to the HD120 MLC (for 6X flat and 6X flattening filterfree (6X FFF) beams) are described. The MC model is validated in the context of VMAT patient‐specific quality assurance. The Monte Carlo commissioning process involves: 1) validating the calculated open‐field percentage depth doses (PDDs), profiles, and output factors (OF), 2) adapting the Siebers‐Keall MLC model to match the new HD120‐MLC geometry and material composition, 3) determining the absolute dose conversion factor for the MC calculation, and 4) validating this entire linac/MLC in the context of dose calculation verification for clinical VMAT plans. MC PDDs for the 6X beams agree with the measured data to within 2.0% for field sizes ranging from 2 × 2 to 40 × 40 cm2. Measured and MC profiles show agreement in the 50% field width and the 80%‐20% penumbra region to within 1.3 mm for all square field sizes. MC OFs for the 2 to 40 cm2 square fields agree with measurement to within 1.6%. Verification of VMAT SABR lung, liver, and vertebra plans demonstrate that measured and MC ion chamber doses agree within 0.6% for the 6X beam and within 2.0% for the 6X FFF beam. A 3D gamma factor analysis demonstrates that for the 6X beam, > 99% of voxels meet the pass criteria (3%/3 mm). For the 6X FFF beam, > 94% of voxels meet this criteria. The TrueBeam accelerator delivering 6X and 6X FFF beams with the HD120 MLC can be modeled in Monte Carlo to provide an independent 3D dose calculation for clinical VMAT plans. This quality assurance tool has been used clinically to verify over 140 6X and 16 6X FFF TrueBeam treatment plans.PACS number: 87.55.K‐

show abstract

“…AAPM TG-105 recommends that Monte Carlo simulations be performed under the same conditions as the measurements. [3][4] In addition, Monte Carlo simulations provide the most accurate dose predictions for small-field dosimetry, as reported in literature, especially for fields of the order of less than 3×3 cm 2 . Through the investigation conducted, the authors aim to increase the literature available about the use of a reference chamber during data collection.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 73%

Evaluation of a novel reference chamber “stealth chamber” through Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data

Quino¹,

Hernandez²,

Calvo³

et al. 2015

Int J Cancer Ther Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate a novel reference chamber (Stealth Chamber by IBA) through experimental data and Monte Carlo simulations for 6 and 15 MV photon energies. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations in a water phantom for field sizes ranging from 3×3 and 25×25 cm 2 were performed for both energies with and without the Monte Carlo model of the Stealth Chamber in the beam path, and compared to commissioning beam data. Percent depth doses (PDDs), profiles, and gamma analysis of the simulations were performed along with an energy spectrum analysis of the phase-space files generated during the simulation. Experimental data were acquired in water with IBA three-dimensional (3D) blue phantom in a set-up identical to the one used in the Monte Carlo simulations. PDD comparisons for fields ranging from 1×1 to 25×25 cm 2 were performed for photon energies. Profile comparison for fields ranging from 1×1 to 25×25 cm 2 were executed for the depths of dmax, 5, 10 and 20 cm. Criteria of 1%, 1 mm to compare PDDs and profiles were used. Transmission measurements with the Stealth Chamber and a Matrixx detector from IBA were investigated. Measurements for 6 and 15 MV with fields ranging from 3×3 to 25×25 cm 2 dimensions were acquired in an open field with and without the Stealth Chamber in the path of the beam. Profiles and gamma analysis with a 1%, 1 mm gamma analysis criterion were performed. Results: Monte Carlo simulations of the PDDs and profiles demonstrate the agreement between both simulations. Furthermore, the gamma analysis (1%, 1 mm) result of the comparison of both planes has 100% of the points passing the criteria. The spectral distribution analysis of the phase spaces for an open field with and without the chamber reveals the agreement between both simulations. Experimental measurements of PDDs and profiles have been conducted and reveal the comparability of relative dosimetric data acquired with the Stealth Chamber and our gold standard the CC13 chamber. Transmission data measured with an ion chamber array (Matrixx) showed the small attenuation caused by the use of the Stealth Chamber. Conclusion: Simulations and experimental results from this investigation indicate the benefits associated with chamber positioning and time expended during the acquisition of the relative measurements of PDDs and profiles for the beam commissioning of photon beams when the Stealth Chamber is used as a reference chamber to perform these tasks. The results demonstrate that relative profiles and PDDs scanned with the Stealth Chamber in place are consistent with those made using a CC13 chamber within a 1% and 1 mm criterion.

show abstract

Monte Carlo modeling of a Novalis TX Varian 6 MV with HD‐120 multileaf collimator

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase–spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC‐shaped fields

Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase–spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC‐shaped fields

Monte Carlo modeling of HD120 multileaf collimator on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator for verification of 6X and 6X FFF VMAT SABR treatment plans

Evaluation of a novel reference chamber “stealth chamber” through Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About