Verification of the Elekta Monaco TPS Monte Carlo in modelling radiation transmission through metals in a water equivalent phantom

Byrnes, Kurt; Ford, Andriana; Bennie, Nick

doi:10.1007/s13246-019-00749-2

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The dose differences calculated by exact contouring increased as the density of the material increased. Thus, the results are compatible without exact delineation of implants [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Byrnes et al used different metal implant materials with known geometries to eliminate geometric uncertainties. They determined the errors in the dose calculation were caused by the Monaco MC algorithm from different electron density without the effects of incorrect contouring [14]. The dose distributions resulting from the effect of artifact and high electron density have been measured and calculated by researchers using MC methods [1,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most important constituent of TPSs is accurate dose calculation [19]. Therefore, the use of MC calculation algorithm in commercial TPS has become widespread recently [14] since it is the most accurate approach in determining the dose released by ionizing radiation in a medium. This technique offers powerful numerical solutions to the highly complex problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to determine on what scale these errors would affect the dose calculations. Thus, planners and physicists are able to understand the uncertainties that exist and gain in dose delivery to target volumes and better sparing of organs at risk [14]. However, there has been no report on how metal implants should be contoured nor a study that would reveal the effects of certain errors in contouring on dose distribution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estimating the dose differences nearby the metal implant by means of artificial contouring errors via Monaco and Geant4

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metal artifacts cause errors in the exact delineation of implants and dose changes in radiotherapy. In this study, the dose distribution differences in the region of interest (ROI) were calculated by deliberately making contouring errors from the real size of model implants by using both Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) and Geant4 toolkit. In Sec. 2, the computed tomography images were acquired by placing known uniform cylindrical geometry titanium (Ti6Al4V) and cobalt (CoCrMo) alloys into water phantoms separately. The metal alloys were artificially contoured as 2 mm contracted and expanded from their real dimensions in Monaco TPS. The plans were generated with 6 MV photon beams for contouring of three different sizes, real, contracted and expanded, for each metal alloy. In addition, all configurations were simulated in Geant4 by using the photon energy spectrum data of the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. Then, the 3D dose data obtained from ROIs near the implant in Monaco TPS and Geant4 were analyzed with in-house programs. In Sec. 3, the depth dose values of Geant4 were compatible with TPS calculations and ion chamber measurements. When the alloys were contoured to real dimensions, it was observed that the local isodose values have changed up to 15% in ROI. The mean dose values were found to be higher in contracted and lower in expanded contours. It was observed that ±2 mm error in contouring the implants changed the mean dose up to ±8%. In Sec. 4, this study emphasized that a few millimeters of error in contouring different implant materials can have a significant effect on dose distribution in a region close to the implant.

show abstract

“…The dose differences calculated by exact contouring increased as the density of the material increased. Thus, the results are compatible without exact delineation of implants [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimating the dose differences nearby the metal implant by means of artificial contouring errors via Monaco and Geant4

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All treatment plans used 6MV photon with a dose rate of 600MU/min, designed using the Monaco (Version 5.11.02, Elekta, Sweden) treatment planning system (TPS) and the Monte Carlo dose algorithm with the sliding window technique of fixed-gantry IMRT and performed on the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator with a 1 cm width MLC at the isocenter. 14 The perpendicular field-by-field method was utilized to measure these patient-specific IMRT plans. All IMRT plans were transferred to be delivered to the 2D ion chamber array (PTW seven29, PTW, Germany), with the gantry angle at 0 degree, and the dose was recalculated using TPS.…”

Section: Treatment Plan and Delivered Dose Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error detection using a multi‐channel hybrid network with a low‐resolution detector in patient‐specific quality assurance

Yan,

Shi,

Xue

et al. 2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aimed to develop a hybrid multi‐channel network to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors using dose difference (DD) maps and gamma maps generated from low‐resolution detectors in patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).MethodsA total of 68 plans with 358 beams of IMRT were included in this study. The MLC leaf positions of all control points in the original IMRT plans were modified to simulate four types of errors: shift error, opening error, closing error, and random error. These modified plans were imported into the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate the predicted dose, while the PTW seven29 phantom was utilized to obtain the measured dose distributions. Based on the measured and predicted dose, DD maps and gamma maps, both with and without errors, were generated, resulting in a dataset with 3222 samples. The network's performance was evaluated using various metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1‐score, ROC curves, and normalized confusion matrix. Besides, other baseline methods, such as single‐channel hybrid network, ResNet‐18, and Swin‐Transformer, were also evaluated as a comparison.ResultsThe experimental results showed that the multi‐channel hybrid network outperformed other methods, demonstrating higher average precision, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1‐scores, with values of 0.87, 0.89, 0.85, 0.97, and 0.85, respectively. The multi‐channel hybrid network also achieved higher AUC values in the random errors (0.964) and the error‐free (0.946) categories. Although the average accuracy of the multi‐channel hybrid network was only marginally better than that of ResNet‐18 and Swin Transformer, it significantly outperformed them regarding precision in the error‐free category.ConclusionThe proposed multi‐channel hybrid network exhibits a high level of accuracy in identifying MLC errors using low‐resolution detectors. The method offers an effective and reliable solution for promoting quality and safety of IMRT QA.

show abstract

Monte Carlo calculations of radiotherapy dose in “homogeneous” anatomy

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verification of the Elekta Monaco TPS Monte Carlo in modelling radiation transmission through metals in a water equivalent phantom

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Estimating the dose differences nearby the metal implant by means of artificial contouring errors via Monaco and Geant4

Estimating the dose differences nearby the metal implant by means of artificial contouring errors via Monaco and Geant4

Error detection using a multi‐channel hybrid network with a low‐resolution detector in patient‐specific quality assurance

Monte Carlo calculations of radiotherapy dose in “homogeneous” anatomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About