2021
DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13481
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for CyberKnife multileaf collimator

Abstract: To commission and evaluate the Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm for the CyberKnife equipped with a multileaf collimator (MLC). Methods: We created a MC model for the MLC using an integrated module of the CyberKnife treatment planning software (TPS). Two parameters could be optimized: the maximum energy and the source full width at halfmaximum (FWHM). The optimization was performed by minimizing the differences between the measured and the MC calculated tissue phantom ratios and profiles. MLC plans w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is the first independent MC dose model reported specifically for the CKM6 radiosurgery system that expands to small field sizes, whose results are compared with the MapCHECK2 PSQA application. Our MC dose model could be further verified by using additional micro‐detectors, SRS MapCHECK2, and/or EBT films, 17,30 especially for measuring the dose profiles at the tails and shoulders regions as in ref 49 . In addition, this MC model was created and verified for homogenous water phantom.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is the first independent MC dose model reported specifically for the CKM6 radiosurgery system that expands to small field sizes, whose results are compared with the MapCHECK2 PSQA application. Our MC dose model could be further verified by using additional micro‐detectors, SRS MapCHECK2, and/or EBT films, 17,30 especially for measuring the dose profiles at the tails and shoulders regions as in ref 49 . In addition, this MC model was created and verified for homogenous water phantom.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Our MC dose model could be further verified by using additional micro‐detectors, SRS MapCHECK2, and/or EBT films, 17 , 30 especially for measuring the dose profiles at the tails and shoulders regions as in ref. 49 In addition, this MC model was created and verified for homogenous water phantom. Further work would be to add CT‐based MC dose calculations, using the ctcreate tool in the DOSXYZnrc dose calculation EGSnrc module, allowing simulations in a realistic anthropomorphic phantom.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To go a step further, we compared the dose differences obtained during MLC validation with the MC algorithm with a previous study performed on the MLC with the MC algorithm of Precision, where configurations 1, 4, 5, and 7 were tested with a similar method. 12 The mean dose difference over these configurations was −1.3% ± 0.5% with the Precision TPS model, whereas 0.2% ± 0.5% with the RS MC model. Another study investigated the dose difference obtained with the previous Accuray TPS (MultiPlan) for fixed collimators and the MC algorithm, with configurations similar to configurations 1, 4, and 7.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…To go a step further, we compared the dose differences obtained during MLC validation with the MC algorithm with a previous study performed on the MLC with the MC algorithm of Precision, where configurations 1, 4, 5, and 7 were tested with a similar method 12 . The mean dose difference over these configurations was −1.3% ± 0.5% with the Precision TPS model, whereas 0.2% ± 0.5% with the RS MC model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, there are two dose calculation algorithms for Iris collimators available in the Precision™ Treatment Planning System, version 1.1.1.1 (Accuray, Wisconsin, USA), RayTracing (RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. The RT algorithm uses effective path length to account for density variations [ 7 ], which ignores the scattering effects of anatomical structural heterogeneity and thus, the calculated dose in low-density regions is falsely high [ 8 10 ]. This may result in the actual dose transmitted to the patient being less than the prescription dose [ 11 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%