A virtual source model of electron contamination of a therapeutic photon beam

Development of a virtual source model for Monte Carlo-based independent dose calculation for varian linac

Monte Carlo (MC) independent dose calculations are often based on phase-space files (PSF), as they can accurately represent particle characteristics. PSF generally are large and create a bottleneck in computation time. In addition, the number of independent particles is limited by the PSF, preventing further reduction of statistical uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a virtual source model (VSM) to address these limitations. Particles from existing PSF for the Varian TrueBeam medical linear accelerator 6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF beam configurations were tallied, analyzed, and used to generate a dual-source photon VSM that includes electron contamination. The particle density distribution, kinetic energy spectrum, particle direction, and the correlations between characteristics were computed. The VSM models for each beam configuration were validated with water phantom measurements as well as clinical test cases against the original PSF. The new VSM requires 67 MB of disk space for each beam configuration, compared to 50 GB for the PSF from which they are based and effectively remove the bottleneck set by the PSF. At 3% MC uncertainty, the VSM approach reduces the calculation time by a factor of 14 on our server. MC doses obtained using the VSM approach were compared against PSF-generated doses in clinical test cases and measurements in a water phantom using a gamma index analysis. For all tests, the VSMs were in excellent agreement with PSF doses and measurements (>90% passing voxels between doses and measurements). Results of this study indicate the successful derivation and implementation of a VSM model for Varian Linac that significantly saves computation time without sacrificing accuracy for independent dose calculation.

Dose Calculation Algorithms for External Radiation Therapy: An Overview for Practitioners

Radiation therapy (RT) is a constantly evolving therapeutic technique; improvements are continuously being introduced for both methodological and practical aspects. Among the features that have undergone a huge evolution in recent decades, dose calculation algorithms are still rapidly changing. This process is propelled by the awareness that the agreement between the delivered and calculated doses is of paramount relevance in RT, since it could largely affect clinical outcomes. The aim of this work is to provide an overall picture of the main dose calculation algorithms currently used in RT, summarizing their underlying physical models and mathematical bases, and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, referring to the most recent studies on algorithm comparisons. This handy guide is meant to provide a clear and concise overview of the topic, which will prove useful in helping clinical medical physicists to perform their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently, increasing patient benefits and improving the overall quality of the management of radiation treatment.

Correlation between the γ passing rates of IMRT plans and the volumes of air cavities and bony structures in head and neck cancer

Background

Both patient-specific dose recalculation and γ passing rate analysis are important for the quality assurance (QA) of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans. The aim of this study was to analyse the correlation between the γ passing rates and the volumes of air cavities (V_air) and bony structures (V_bone) in target volume of head and neck cancer.

Methods

Twenty nasopharyngeal carcinoma and twenty nasal natural killer T-cell lymphoma patients were enrolled in this study. Nine-field sliding window IMRT plans were produced and the dose distributions were calculated by anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) and SciMoCa based on the Monte Carlo (MC) technique. The dose distributions and γ passing rates of the targets, organs at risk, air cavities and bony structures were compared among the different algorithms.

Results

The γ values obtained with AAA and AXB were 95.6 ± 1.9% and 96.2 ± 1.7%, respectively, with 3%/2 mm criteria (p > 0.05). There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the γ values between AAA and AXB in the air cavities (86.6 ± 9.4% vs. 98.0 ± 1.7%) and bony structures (82.7 ± 13.5% vs. 99.0 ± 1.7%). Using AAA, the γ values were proportional to the natural logarithm of V_air (R² = 0.674) and inversely proportional to the natural logarithm of V_bone (R² = 0.816). When the V_air in the targets was smaller than approximately 80 cc or the V_bone in the targets was larger than approximately 6 cc, the γ values of AAA were below 95%. Using AXB, no significant relationship was found between the γ values and V_air or V_bone.

Conclusion

In clinical head and neck IMRT QA, greater attention should be paid to the effect of V_air and V_bone in the targets on the γ passing rates when using different dose calculation algorithms.

Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans

Purpose

In this study, 4‐Hz log files were evaluated with an independent secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm to reduce the workload for patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) in clinical routine.

Materials and Methods

A total of 30 randomly selected clinical prostate VMAT plans were included. The used treatment planning system (TPS) was Monaco (Elekta, Crawley), and the secondary dose calculation software was SciMoCa (Scientific‐RT, Munich). Monaco and SciMoCa work with a Monte Carlo algorithm. A plausibility check of Monaco and SciMoCa was performed using an ionization chamber in the BodyPhantom (BP). First, the original Monaco RT plans were verified with SciMoCa (pretreatment QA). Second, the corresponding 4‐Hz log files were converted into RT log file plans and sent to SciMoCa as on‐treatment QA. MLC shift errors were introduced for one prostate plan to determine the sensitivity of on‐treatment QA. For pretreatment and on‐treatment QA, a gamma analysis (2%/1mm/20%) was performed and dosimetric values of PTV and OARs were ascertained in SciMoCa.

Results

Plausibility check of TPS Monaco vs. BP measurement and SciMoCa vs. BP measurement showed valid accuracy for clinical VMAT QA. Using SciMoCa, there was no significant difference in PTV Dmean between RT plan and RT log file plan. Between pretreatment and on‐treatment QA, PTV metrics, femur right and left showed no significant dosimetric differences as opposed to OARs rectum and bladder. The overall gamma passing rate (GPR) ranged from 96.10% to 100% in pretreatment QA and from 93.50% to 99.80% in on‐treatment QA. MLC shift errors were identified for deviations larger than −0.50 mm and +0.75 mm using overall gamma criterion and PTV Dmean.

Conclusion

SciMoCa calculations of Monaco RT plans and RT log file plans are in excellent agreement to each other. Therefore, 4‐Hz log files and SciMoCa can replace labor‐intensive phantom‐based measurements as patient‐specific QA.

Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT

PURPOSE

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time-consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC-based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well-established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle3 ) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements.

METHODS

Fifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%-2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans.

RESULTS

TPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and -0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical 95 % clinical tolerance threshold.

CONCLUSION

This work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC-based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC-based secondary patient-specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per-plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols.

Spatial Mesh-Based Surface Source Model for the Electron Contamination of an 18 MV Photon Beams

Background

Source modeling is an approach to reduce computational burden in Monte Carlo simulations but at the cost of reduced accuracy. Although this method can be effective, one component of the source model that is exceptionally difficult to model is the electron contamination, a significant contributor to the skin and shallow dose.

Aims and Objectives

To improve the accuracy for the electron contamination component of the overall source model, we have generated a spatial mesh based surface source model.

Methods and Materials

The source model is located downstream from the flattening filter and mirror but upstream from the movable jaws. A typical phase space file uses around ten parameters per particle, but this method simplifies this number to five components. By using only the electron distance from the central axis, angles from the central axis and energy, the computational time and disk space required is greatly reduced.

Results and Conclusion

Despite the simplification in the source model, the electron contamination is still accurate to within 1.5%.

Comparison of planned dose on different CT image sets to four-dimensional Monte Carlo dose recalculation using the patient's actual breathing trace for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The need for four-dimensional (4D) treatment planning becomes indispensable when it comes to radiation therapy for moving tumors in the thoracic and abdominal regions. The primary purpose of this study is to combine the actual breathing trace during each individual treatment fraction with the Linac's log file information and Monte Carlo 4D dose calculations. We investigated this workflow on multiple computed tomography (CT) datasets in a clinical environment for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment planning.

METHODS

We have developed a workflow, which allows us to recalculate absorbed dose to a 4DCT dataset using Monte Carlo calculation methods and accumulate all 4D doses in order to compare them to the planned dose using the Linac's log file, a 4DCT dataset, and the patient's actual breathing curve for each individual fraction. For five lung patients, three-dimensional-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) treatment plans were generated on four different CT image datasets: a native free-breathing 3DCT, an average intensity projection (AIP) and a maximum intensity projection (MIP) CT both obtained from a 4DCT, and a 3DCT with density overrides based on the 3DCT (DO). The Monte Carlo 4D dose has been calculated on each 4DCT phase using the Linac's log file and the patient's breathing trace as a surrogate for tumor motion and dose was accumulated to the gross tumor volume (GTV) at the 50% breathing phase (end of exhale) using deformable image registration.

RESULTS

Δ D 98 % and Δ D 2 % between 4D dose and planned dose differed largely for 3DCT-based planning and also for DO in three patients. Least dose differences between planned and recalculated dose have been found for AIP and MIP treatment planning which both tend to be superior to DO, but the results indicate a dependency on the breathing variability, tumor motion, and size. An interplay effect has not been observed in the small patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a workflow which, to our best knowledge, is the first incorporation of the patient breathing trace over the course of all individual treatment fractions with the Linac's log file information and 4D Monte Carlo recalculations of the actual treated dose. Due to the small patient cohort, no clear recommendation on which CT can be used for SBRT treatment planning can be given, but the developed workflow, after adaption for clinical use, could be used to enhance a priori 4D Monte Carlo treatment planning in the future and help with the decision on which CT dataset treatment planning should be carried out.

Agility MLC transmission optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system

The Monaco Monte Carlo treatment planning system uses three-beam model components to achieve accuracy in dose calculation. These components include a virtual source model (VSM), transmission probability filters (TPFs), and an x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) engine to calculate the dose in the patient. The aim of this study was to assess the TPF component of the Monaco TPS and optimize the TPF parameters using measurements from an Elekta linear accelerator with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The optimization began with all TPF parameters set to their default value. The function of each TPF parameter was characterized and a value was selected that best replicated measurements with the Agility™ MLC. Both vendor provided fields and a set of additional test fields were used to create a rigorous systematic process, which can be used to optimize the TPF parameters. It was found that adjustment of the TPF parameters based on this process resulted in improved point dose measurements and improved 3D gamma analysis pass rates with Octavius 4D. All plans calculated with the optimized beam model had a gamma pass rate of > 95% using criteria of 2% global dose/2 mm distance-to-agreement, while some plans calculated with the default beam model had pass rates as low as 88.4%. For measured point doses, the improvement was particularly noticeable in the low-dose regions of the clinical plans. In these regions, the average difference from the planned dose reduced from 4.4 ± 4.5% to 0.9 ± 2.7% with a coverage factor (k = 2) using the optimized beam model. A step-by-step optimization guide is provided at the end of this study to assist in the optimization of the TPF parameters in the Monaco TPS. Although it is possible to achieve good clinical results by randomly selecting TPF parameter values, it is recommended that the optimization process outlined in this study is followed so that the transmission through the TPF is characterized appropriately.

Validation of the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm versus Monte Carlo for clinical treatment plans

PURPOSE

The two distinct dose computation paradigms of Boltzmann equation solvers and Monte Carlo simulation both promise in principle maximum accuracy. In practice, clinically acceptable calculation times demand approximations and numerical short-cuts on one hand, and modeling the beam characteristics of a real linear accelerator to the required accuracy on the other. A thorough benchmark of both algorithm types therefore needs to start with beam modeling, and needs to include a number of clinically challenging treatment plans.

METHODS

The Acuros XB (v 13.7, Varian Medical Systems) and SciMoCa (v 1.0, Scientific RT) algorithms were commissioned for the same Varian Clinac accelerator for beam qualities 6 and 15 MV. Beam models were established with water phantom measurements and MLC calibration protocols. In total, 25 patients of five case classes (lung/three-dimensional (3D) conformal, lung/IMRT, head and neck/VMAT, cervix/IMRT, and rectum/VMAT) were randomly selected from the clinical database and computed with both algorithms. Statistics of 3D gamma analysis for various dose/distance-to-agreement (DTA) criteria and differences in selected DVH parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

The percentage of points fulfilling a gamma evaluation was scored as the gamma agreement index (GAI), denoted as G(ΔD, DTA). G(3,3), G(2,2), and G(1,1) were evaluated for the full body, PTV, and selected organs at risk (OARs). For all patients, G(3,3) ≥ 99.9% and G(2,2) > 97% for the body. G(1,1) varied among the patients. However, for all patients, G(1,1) > 70% and G(1,1) > 80% for 68% of the patients. For each patient, the mean dose deviation was ΔD < 1% for the body, PTV, and all evaluated OARs, respectively. In dense bone and at off-axis distance > 10 cm, the Acuros algorithm yielded slightly higher doses. In the first layer of voxels of the patient surface, the calculated doses deviated between the algorithms. However, at the second voxel, good agreement was observed. The differences in D(98%PTV) were <1.9% between the two algorithms and for 76% of the patients, deviations were below 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, an outstanding agreement was found between the Boltzmann equation solver and Monte Carlo. High-accuracy dose computation algorithms have matured to a level that their differences are below common experimental detection thresholds for clinical treatment plans. Aside from residual differences which could be traced back to implementation details and fundamental cross-section data, both algorithms arrive at identical dose distributions.

Evaluation of machine log files/MC-based treatment planning and delivery QA as compared to ArcCHECK QA

PURPOSE

A treatment planning/delivery QA tool using linac log files (LF) and Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is investigated as a standalone alternative to phantom-based patient-specific QA (ArcCHECK (AC)).

METHODS

Delivering a variety of fields onto MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK, diode sensitivity dependence on dose rate (in-field) and energy (primarily out-of-field) was quantified. AC and LF QAs were analyzed with respect to delivery complexity by delivering 12 × 12 cm static fields/arcs comprised of varying numbers of abutting sub-fields onto ArcCHECK. About 11 clinical dual-arc VMAT patients planned using Pinnacle's convolution-superposition (CS) were delivered on ArcCHECK and log file dose (LF-CS and LF-MC) calculated. To minimize calculation time, reduced LF-CS sampling (1/2/3/4° control point spacing) was investigated. Planned ("Plan") and LF-reconstructed CS and MC doses were compared with each other and AC measurement via statistical [mean ± StdDev(σ)] and gamma analyses to isolate dosimetric uncertainties and quantify the relative accuracies of AC QA and MC-based LF QA.

RESULTS

Calculation and ArcCHECK measurement differed by up to 1.5% in-field due to variation in dose rate and up to 5% out-of-field. For the experimental segment-varying plans, despite CS calculation deviating by as much as 13% from measurement, Plan-MC and LF-MC doses generally matched AC measurement within 3%. Utilizing 1° control point spacing, 2%/2 mm LF-CS vs AC pass rates (97%) were slightly lower than Plan-CS vs AC pass rates (97.5%). Utilizing all log file samples, 2%/2 mm LF-MC vs AC pass rates (97.3%) were higher than Plan-MC vs AC (96.5%). Phantom-dependent, calculation algorithm-dependent (MC vs CS), and delivery error-dependent dose uncertainties were 0.8 ± 1.2%, 0.2 ± 1.1%, and 0.1 ± 0.9% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructing every log file sample with no increase in computational cost, MC-based LF QA is faster and more accurate than CS-based LF QA. Offering similar dosimetric accuracy compared to AC measurement, MC-based log files can be used for treatment planning QA.

Technical Note: An approach to building a Monte Carlo simulation model for a double scattering proton beam system

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate and develop a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation model for a passive double scattering compact proton therapy system based on limited information of the mechanical components.

METHOD

We built a virtual machine source model (VMSM) which included a detailed definition of each beam-modifying component in the nozzle. Conceptually, it is similar to the conventional virtual analytical source model (VASM), except that the numerical machine nozzle or beamline is constructed in the VMSM, whereas in the VASM analytical parameters characterizing the energy spectrum and source fluence distribution are sought. All major beam shaping components were included in the VMSM and the model simulates interactions of the beam with a rotating range modulation wheel (RMW) combined with the beam current modulation. The RMWs, the first and second scatterer in the system were generated and tuned to reproduce measurement data as closely as possible. To validate the model, we compared the percent depth dose curves, spread out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) and lateral profiles against measured commissioning beam data.

RESULTS

The agreement of beam range between the MC calculation and measurement was within 1 mm for all beam options. The distal-falloff length was in good agreement as well (<1 mm for the large and deep groups, <1.5 mm for the small group). Agreement to within 2.5 mm of measured SOBP widths was obtained for all MC calculations. For lateral profiles, differences were found to be less than 2 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that with limited geometrical information it is possible to build an acceptable source model for MC simulations of a passive double scattering compact proton therapy system. The agreement between the measurements and the MC model provides validation for use of the model for further studies of the dosimetric effects in patient treatments.

Monaco treatment planning system tools and optimization processes

The Monaco treatment planning system combines Monte Carlo dose calculation accuracy with robust optimization tools to provide high-quality radiotherapy treatment plans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Recent technology advances have allowed for fast calculation speeds, which allow clinicians and patients to benefit from the accuracy of the Monte Carlo algorithm while reducing overall planning time. A collection of biological and physical dose-based planning tools and templates simplify the planning process and allow for consistent results across organizations. At the same time, multicriteria optimization (MCO) ensures critical organs are spared to the greatest possible degree while maintaining target coverage. Monaco encompasses a full suite of treatment modalities, including conventional radiotherapy and particle therapy, and is paving the way for real-time adaptive treatments with developments in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiation therapy.

A single-source photon source model of a linear accelerator for Monte Carlo dose calculation

PURPOSE

To introduce a new method of deriving a virtual source model (VSM) of a linear accelerator photon beam from a phase space file (PSF) for Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PSF of a 6 MV photon beam was generated by simulating the interactions of primary electrons with the relevant geometries of a Synergy linear accelerator (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) and recording the particles that reach a plane 16 cm downstream the electron source. Probability distribution functions (PDFs) for particle positions and energies were derived from the analysis of the PSF. These PDFs were implemented in the VSM using inverse transform sampling. To model particle directions, the phase space plane was divided into a regular square grid. Each element of the grid corresponds to an area of 1 mm2 in the phase space plane. The average direction cosines, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between photon energies and their direction cosines, as well as the PCC between the direction cosines were calculated for each grid element. Weighted polynomial surfaces were then fitted to these 2D data. The weights are used to correct for heteroscedasticity across the phase space bins. The directions of the particles created by the VSM were calculated from these fitted functions. The VSM was validated against the PSF by comparing the doses calculated by the two methods for different square field sizes. The comparisons were performed with profile and gamma analyses.

RESULTS

The doses calculated with the PSF and VSM agree to within 3% /1 mm (>95% pixel pass rate) for the evaluated fields.

CONCLUSION

A new method of deriving a virtual photon source model of a linear accelerator from a PSF file for MC dose calculation was developed. Validation results show that the doses calculated with the VSM and the PSF agree to within 3% /1 mm.

Experimental Validation of Monte Carlo Simulations Based on a Virtual Source Model for TomoTherapy in a RANDO Phantom

A virtual source model for Monte Carlo simulations of helical TomoTherapy has been developed previously by the authors. The purpose of this work is to perform experiments in an anthropomorphic (RANDO) phantom with the same order of complexity as in clinical treatments to validate the virtual source model to be used for quality assurance secondary check on TomoTherapy patient planning dose. Helical TomoTherapy involves complex delivery pattern with irregular beam apertures and couch movement during irradiation. Monte Carlo simulation, as the most accurate dose algorithm, is desirable in radiation dosimetry. Current Monte Carlo simulations for helical TomoTherapy adopt the full Monte Carlo model, which includes detailed modeling of individual machine component, and thus, large phase space files are required at different scoring planes. As an alternative approach, we developed a virtual source model without using the large phase space files for the patient dose calculations previously. In this work, we apply the simulation system to recompute the patient doses, which were generated by the treatment planning system in an anthropomorphic phantom to mimic the real patient treatments. We performed thermoluminescence dosimeter point dose and film measurements to compare with Monte Carlo results. Thermoluminescence dosimeter measurements show that the relative difference in both Monte Carlo and treatment planning system is within 3%, with the largest difference less than 5% for both the test plans. The film measurements demonstrated 85.7% and 98.4% passing rate using the 3 mm/3% acceptance criterion for the head and neck and lung cases, respectively. Over 95% passing rate is achieved if 4 mm/4% criterion is applied. For the dose–volume histograms, very good agreement is obtained between the Monte Carlo and treatment planning system method for both cases. The experimental results demonstrate that the virtual source model Monte Carlo system can be a viable option for the accurate dose calculation of helical TomoTherapy.

Monte Carlo systems used for treatment planning and dose verification

General-purpose radiation transport Monte Carlo codes have been used for estimation of the absorbed dose distribution in external photon and electron beam radiotherapy patients since several decades. Results obtained with these codes are usually more accurate than those provided by treatment planning systems based on non-stochastic methods. Traditionally, absorbed dose computations based on general-purpose Monte Carlo codes have been used only for research, owing to the difficulties associated with setting up a simulation and the long computation time required. To take advantage of radiation transport Monte Carlo codes applied to routine clinical practice, researchers and private companies have developed treatment planning and dose verification systems that are partly or fully based on fast Monte Carlo algorithms. This review presents a comprehensive list of the currently existing Monte Carlo systems that can be used to calculate or verify an external photon and electron beam radiotherapy treatment plan. Particular attention is given to those systems that are distributed, either freely or commercially, and that do not require programming tasks from the end user. These systems are compared in terms of features and the simulation time required to compute a set of benchmark calculations.

Determination of MLC model parameters for Monaco using commercial diode arrays

Multileaf collimators (MLCs) need to be characterized accurately in treatment planning systems to facilitate accurate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The aim of this study was to examine the use of MapCHECK 2 and ArcCHECK diode arrays for optimizing MLC parameters in Monaco X‐ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) dose calculation algorithm. A series of radiation test beams designed to evaluate MLC model parameters were delivered to MapCHECK 2, ArcCHECK, and EBT3 Gafchromic film for comparison. Initial comparison of the calculated and ArcCHECK‐measured dose distributions revealed it was unclear how to change the MLC parameters to gain agreement. This ambiguity arose due to an insufficient sampling of the test field dose distributions and unexpected discrepancies in the open parts of some test fields. Consequently, the XVMC MLC parameters were optimized based on MapCHECK 2 measurements. Gafchromic EBT3 film was used to verify the accuracy of MapCHECK 2 measured dose distributions. It was found that adjustment of the MLC parameters from their default values resulted in improved global gamma analysis pass rates for MapCHECK 2 measurements versus calculated dose. The lowest pass rate of any MLC‐modulated test beam improved from 68.5% to 93.5% with 3% and 2 mm gamma criteria. Given the close agreement of the optimized model to both MapCHECK 2 and film, the optimized model was used as a benchmark to highlight the relatively large discrepancies in some of the test field dose distributions found with ArcCHECK. Comparison between the optimized model‐calculated dose and ArcCHECK‐measured dose resulted in global gamma pass rates which ranged from 70.0%–97.9% for gamma criteria of 3% and 2 mm. The simple square fields yielded high pass rates. The lower gamma pass rates were attributed to the ArcCHECK overestimating the dose in‐field for the rectangular test fields whose long axis was parallel to the long axis of the ArcCHECK. Considering ArcCHECK measurement issues and the lower gamma pass rates for the MLC‐modulated test beams, it was concluded that MapCHECK 2 was a more suitable detector than ArcCHECK for the optimization process.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr

Use of IAEA's phase-space files for the implementation of a clinical accelerator virtual source model

In the present work, phase-space data files (phsp) provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for different accelerators were used in order to develop a Virtual Source Model (VSM) for clinical photon beams. Spectral energy distributions extracted from supplied phsp files were used to define the radiation pattern of a virtual extended source in a hybrid model which is completed with a virtual diaphragm used to simulate both electron contamination and the shape of the penumbra region. This simple virtual model was used as the radiation source for dosimetry calculations in a water phantom. The proposed model proved easy to build and test, and good agreement with clinical accelerators dosimetry measurements were obtained for different field sizes. Our results suggest this simple method could be useful for treatment planning systems (TPS) verification purposes.

A comprehensive procedure for characterizing arbitrary azimuthally symmetric photon beams

PURPOSE

A new Monte Carlo (MC) source model (SM) has been developed for azimuthally symmetric photon beams.

METHODS

The MC simulation tallied phase space file (PSF) is divided into two categories depending on the relationship of the particle track line to the beam central axis: multiple point source (MPS) and spatial mesh based surface source (SMBSS). To validate this SM, MCNPX2.6 was used to generate two PSFs for a 6 MV photon beam from a Varian 2100C/D linear accelerator.

RESULTS

PDDs and profiles were calculated using the SM and original PSF for different field sizes from 5 × 5 to 40 × 40 cm2. Agreement was within 2% of the maximum dose at 100 cm SSD and 2.5% of the maximum dose at 200 cm SSD for beam profiles at depths of 3.5 cm and 15 cm with respect to the original PSF. Differences between the source model and the PSF in the out-of-field regions were less than 0.5% of the profile maximum value at 100 cm SSD. Differences between measured and calculated points were less than 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) at 100 cm SSD.

CONCLUSIONS

This SM is unique in that it accounts for a higher level of energy dependence on the particle's direction and it is independent from accelerator components, unlike other published SMs. The model can be applied to any arbitrary azimuthally symmetric beam and has source biasing capabilities that significantly increase the simulation speed up to 3300 for certain field sizes.

Measurement and effects of MOSKIN detectors on skin dose during high energy radiotherapy treatment

During in vivo dosimetry for megavoltage X-ray beams, detectors such as diodes, Thermo luminescent dosimeters (TLD's) and MOSFET devices are placed on the patient's skin. This of course will affect the skin dose delivered during that fraction of the treatment. Whilst the overall impact on increasing skin dose would be minimal, little has been quantified concerning the level of increase in absorbed dose, in vivo dosimeters produce when placed in the beams path. To this extent, measurements have been made and analysis performed on dose changes caused by MOSKIN, MOSFET, skin dose detectors. Maximum increases in skin dose were measured as 15 % for 6 MV X-rays and 10 % for 10 MV X-rays at the active crystal of the MOSKIN device which is the thickest part of the detector. This is compared to 32 and 26 % for a standard 1 mm thick LiF TLD at 10 × 10 cm(2) field size for 6 and 10 MV X-rays respectively. Radiochromic film, EBT2 has been shown to provide a high resolution 2 dimensional map of skin dose from these detectors and measures the effects of in vivo dosimeters used for radiotherapy dose assessment.

Development of a Geant4 based Monte Carlo Algorithm to evaluate the MONACO VMAT treatment accuracy

A method to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans, generated with the MONACO™ (version 3.0) treatment planning system in realistic CT-data with an independent Geant4 based dose calculation algorithm is presented. Therefore a model of an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator treatment head with an MLCi2 multileaf collimator was implemented in Geant4. The time dependent linear accelerator components were modeled by importing either logfiles of an actual plan delivery or a DICOM-RT plan sequence. Absolute dose calibration, depending on a reference measurement, was applied. The MONACO as well as the Geant4 treatment head model was commissioned with lateral profiles and depth dose curves of square fields in water and with film measurements in inhomogeneous phantoms. A VMAT treatment plan for a patient with a thoracic tumor and a VMAT treatment plan of a patient, who received treatment in the thoracic spine region including metallic implants, were used for evaluation. MONACO, as well as Geant4, depth dose curves and lateral profiles of square fields had a mean local gamma (2%, 2mm) tolerance criteria agreement of more than 95% for all fields. Film measurements in inhomogeneous phantoms with a global gamma of (3%, 3mm) showed a pass rate above 95% in all voxels receiving more than 25% of the maximum dose. A dose-volume-histogram comparison of the VMAT patient treatment plans showed mean deviations between Geant4 and MONACO of -0.2% (first patient) and 2.0% (second patient) for the PTVs and (0.5±1.0)% and (1.4±1.1)% for the organs at risk in relation to the prescription dose. The presented method can be used to validate VMAT dose distributions generated by a large number of small segments in regions with high electron density gradients. The MONACO dose distributions showed good agreement with Geant4 and film measurements within the simulation and measurement errors.

Validation of a virtual source model for Monte Carlo dose calculations of a flattening filter free linac

PURPOSE

A linac delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can benefit from a flattening filter free (FFF) design which offers higher dose rates and reduced accelerator head scatter than for conventional (flattened) delivery. This reduction in scatter simplifies beam modeling, and combining a Monte Carlo dose engine with a FFF accelerator could potentially increase dose calculation accuracy. The objective of this work was to model a FFF machine using an adapted version of a previously published virtual source model (VSM) for Monte Carlo calculations and to verify its accuracy.

METHODS

An Elekta Synergy linear accelerator operating at 6 MV has been modified to enable irradiation both with and without the flattening filter (FF). The VSM has been incorporated into a commercially available treatment planning system (Monaco™ v 3.1) as VSM 1.6. Dosimetric data were measured to commission the treatment planning system (TPS) and the VSM adapted to account for the lack of angular differential absorption and general beam hardening. The model was then tested using standard water phantom measurements and also by creating IMRT plans for a range of clinical cases.

RESULTS

The results show that the VSM implementation handles the FFF beams very well, with an uncertainty between measurement and calculation of <1% which is comparable to conventional flattened beams. All IMRT beams passed standard quality assurance tests with >95% of all points passing gamma analysis (γ < 1) using a 3%/3 mm tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual source model for flattened beams was successfully adapted to a flattening filter free beam production. Water phantom and patient specific QA measurements show excellent results, and comparisons of IMRT plans generated in conventional and FFF mode are underway to assess dosimetric uncertainties and possible improvements in dose calculation and delivery.