Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in slab phantoms with cortical bone equivalent heterogeneities

Dosimetric evaluation of high-Z inhomogeneity with modern algorithms: A collaborative study

PURPOSE

To evaluate modern dose calculation algorithms with high-Z prosthetic devices used in radiation treatment.

METHODS

A bilateral hip prosthetic patient was selected to see the effect of modern algorithms from the commercial system for plan comparisons. The CT data with dose constraints were sent to various institutions for dose calculations. The dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% were compared. A water phantom with an actual prosthetic device was used to measure the dose using a parallel plate ionization chamber.

RESULTS

Dosimetric variability in PTV coverage was significant (>10%) among various treatment planning algorithms. The comparison of PTV dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% as well as organs at risk (OAR) have large discrepancies compared to our previous publication with older algorithms (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.02.007) but provides realistic dose distribution with better homogeneity index (HI). Backscatter and forward scatter attenuation of the prosthesis was measured showing differences <15.7% at the interface among various algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern algorithms dose distributions have improved greatly compared to older generation algorithms. However, there is still significant differences at high-Z-tissue interfaces compared to the measurements. To ensure accuracy, it's important to take precautions avoiding placing any prosthesis in the beam direction and using type C algorithms.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:

Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning.

Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Report of AAPM Task Group 155: Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions

Small-field dosimetry used in advance treatment technologies poses challenges due to loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium (LCPE), occlusion of the primary photon source, and the limited choice of suitable radiation detectors. These challenges greatly influence dosimetric accuracy. Many high-profile radiation incidents have demonstrated a poor understanding of appropriate methodology for small-field dosimetry. These incidents are a cause for concern because the use of small fields in various specialized radiation treatment techniques continues to grow rapidly. Reference and relative dosimetry in small and composite fields are the subject of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dosimetry code of practice that has been published as TRS-483 and an AAPM summary publication (IAEA TRS 483; Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination, Technical Report Series No. 483; Palmans et al., Med Phys 45(11):e1123, 2018). The charge of AAPM task group 155 (TG-155) is to summarize current knowledge on small-field dosimetry and to provide recommendations of best practices for relative dose determination in small megavoltage photon beams. An overview of the issue of LCPE and the changes in photon beam perturbations with decreasing field size is provided. Recommendations are included on appropriate detector systems and measurement methodologies. Existing published data on dosimetric parameters in small photon fields (e.g., percentage depth dose, tissue phantom ratio/tissue maximum ratio, off-axis ratios, and field output factors) together with the necessary perturbation corrections for various detectors are reviewed. A discussion on errors and an uncertainty analysis in measurements is provided. The design of beam models in treatment planning systems to simulate small fields necessitates special attention on the influence of the primary beam source and collimating devices in the computation of energy fluence and dose. The general requirements for fluence and dose calculation engines suitable for modeling dose in small fields are reviewed. Implementations in commercial treatment planning systems vary widely, and the aims of this report are to provide insight for the medical physicist and guidance to developers of beams models for radiotherapy treatment planning systems.

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

PURPOSE

To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium.

METHODS

The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D_w,w), dose to water in medium (D_w,m), and dose to medium in medium (D_m,m). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D_m,m).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose to medium in medium (D_m,m) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D_w,w), this is acceptable.

Towards the standardization of the absorbed dose report mode in high energy photon beams

The benefits of using an algorithm that reports absorbed dose-to-medium have been jeopardized by the clinical experience and the experimental protocols that have mainly relied on absorbed dose-to-water. The aim of the present work was to investigate the physical aspects that govern the dosimetry in heterogeneous media using Monte Carlo method and to introduce a formalism for the experimental validation of absorbed dose-to-medium reporting algorithms. Particle fluence spectra computed within the sensitive volume of two simulated detectors (T31016 Pinpoint 3D ionization chamber and EBT3 radiochromic film) placed in different media (water, RW3, lung and bone) were compared to those in the undisturbed media for 6 MV photon beams. A heterogeneity correction factor that takes into account the difference between the detector perturbation in medium and under reference conditions as well as the stopping-power ratios was then derived for all media using cema calculations. Furthermore, the different conversion approaches and Eclipse treatment planning system algorithms were compared against the Monte Carlo absorbed dose reports. The detectors electron fluence perturbation in RW3 and lung media were close to that in water (≤1.5%). However, the perturbation was greater in bone (∼4%) and impacted the spectral shape. It was emphasized that detectors readings should be corrected by the heterogeneity correction factor that ranged from 0.932 in bone to 0.985 in lung. Significant discrepancies were observed between all the absorbed dose reports and conversions, especially in bone (exceeding 10%) and to a lesser extent in RW3. Given the ongoing advances in dose calculation algorithms, it is essential to standardize the absorbed dose report mode with absorbed dose-to-medium as a favoured choice. It was concluded that a retrospective conversion should be avoided and switching from absorbed dose-to-water to absorbed dose-to-medium reporting algorithm should be carried out by a direct comparison of both algorithms.

Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma

PURPOSE

To investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG).

METHODS

We used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions.

RESULTS

Compared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.

Improving accuracy for stereotactic body radiotherapy treatments of spinal metastases

PURPOSE

Use of SBRT techniques is now a relatively common recourse for spinal metastases due to good local control rates and durable pain control. However, the technique has not yet reached maturity for gantry-based systems, so work is still required in finding planning approaches that produce optimum conformity as well as delivery for the slew of treatment planning systems and treatment machines.

METHODS

A set of 32 SBRT spine treatment plans based on four vertebral sites, varying in modality and number of control points, were created in Pinnacle. These plans were assessed according to complexity metrics and planning objectives as well as undergoing treatment delivery QA on an Elekta VersaHD through ion chamber measurement, ArcCheck, film-dose map comparison and MLC log-file reconstruction via PerFraction.

RESULTS

All methods of QA demonstrated statistically significant agreement with each other (r = 0.63, P < 0.001). Plan complexity and delivery accuracy were found to be independent of MUs (r = 0.22, P > 0.05) but improved with the number of control points (r = 0.46, P < 0.03); with use of 90 control points producing the most complex and least accurate plans. The fraction of small apertures used in treatment had no impact on plan quality or accuracy (r = 0.29, P > 0.05) but rather more complexly modulated plans showed poorer results due to MLC leaf position inaccuracies. Plans utilizing 180 and 240 control points produced optimal plan coverage with similar complexity metrics to each other. However, plans with 240 control points demonstrated slightly better delivery accuracy, with fewer MLC leaf position discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to other studies, MU had no effect on delivery accuracy, with the most impactful parameter at the disposal of the planner being the number of control points utilized.

A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media

Background

A comparison of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms with Electron Gamma Shower (EGSnrc) Monte Carlo (MC) for modelling lung and bone heterogeneities encountered during enhanced dynamic wedged (EDWs) radiotherapy dose deliveries was carried out.

Materials and methods

In three heterogenous slab phantoms: water–bone, lung–bone and bone–lung, wedged percentage depth doses with EGSnrc, AAA and AXB algorithms for 6 MV photons for various field sizes (5×5, 10×10 and 20×20 cm2) and EDW angles (15°, 30°, 45° and 60°) have been scored.

Results

For all the scenarios, AAA and AXB results were within ±1% of the MC in the pre-inhomogeneity region. For water–bone AAA and AXB deviated by 6 and 1%, respectively. For lung–bone an underestimation in lung (AAA: 5%, AXB: 2%) and overestimation in bone was observed (AAA: 13%, AXB: 4%). For bone–lung phantom overestimation in bone (AAA: 7%, AXB: 1%), a lung underdosage (AAA: 8%, AXB: 5%) was found. Post bone up to 12% difference in the AAA and MC results was observed as opposed to 6% in case of AXB.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the limitation of the AAA (in certain scenarios) and accuracy of AXB for dose estimation inside and around lung and bone inhomogeneities. The dose perturbation effects were found to be slightly dependent on the field size with no obvious EDW dependence.

Effects of heterogeneities in dose distributions under nonreference conditions: Monte Carlo simulation vs dose calculation algorithms

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of dose calculation algorithms used in radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) in comparison with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in nonelectronic equilibrium conditions. MC simulations with PENELOPE package were performed for comparison of doses calculated by pencil beam convolution (PBC), analytical anisotropy algorithm (AAA), and Acuros XB TPS algorithms. Relative depth dose curves were calculated in heterogeneous water phantoms with layers of bone (1.8 g/cm³) and lung (0.3 g/cm³) equivalent materials for radiation fields between 1 × 1 cm² and 10 × 10 cm². Analysis of relative depth dose curves at the water-bone interface shows that PBC and AAA algorithms present the largest differences to MC calculations (u_MC = 0.5%), with maximum differences of up to 4.3% of maximum dose. For the lung-equivalent material and 1 × 1 cm² field, differences can be up to 24.3% for PBC, 11.5% for AAA, and 7.5% for Acuros. Results show that Acurus presents the best agreement with MC simulation data with equivalent accuracy for modeling radiotherapy dose deposition especially in regions where electronic equilibrium does not hold. For typical (nonsmall) fields used in radiotherapy, AAA and PBC can exhibit reasonable agreement with MC results even in regions of heterogeneities.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low- and high-density heterogeneities

The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a 30×30×30 cm3 solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of 20×2.5×2.35 cm3. The third phantom consisted of 30×30×5 cm3 solid water slabs, two 30×30×5 cm3 slabs of lung, and one 30×30×1 cm3 solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of +4.4% to −12.8%. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within ∼2.5%, except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by −3.1% and ∼2% for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes.

PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k

Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB with collapsed cone convolution/superposition and anisotropic analytic algorithm for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of thoracic spinal metastases

The aim of this study is to compare the recent Eclipse Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation engine with the Pinnacle collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCC) dose calculation algorithm and the Eclipse anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) treatment planning of thoracic spinal (T‐spine) metastases using IMRT and VMAT delivery techniques. The three commissioned dose engines (CCC, AAA, and AXB) were validated with ion chamber and EBT2 film measurements utilizing a heterogeneous slab‐geometry water phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom. Step‐and‐shoot IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were developed and optimized for eight patients in Pinnacle, following our institutional SAbR protocol for spinal metastases. The CCC algorithm, with heterogeneity corrections, was used for dose calculations. These plans were then exported to Eclipse and recalculated using the AAA and AXB dose calculation algorithms. Various dosimetric parameters calculated with CCC and AAA were compared to that of the AXB calculations. In regions receiving above 50% of prescription dose, the calculated CCC mean dose is 3.1%–4.1% higher than that of AXB calculations for IMRT plans and 2.8%–3.5% higher for VMAT plans, while the calculated AAA mean dose is 1.5%–2.4% lower for IMRT and 1.2%–1.6% lower for VMAT. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were observed for most GTV and PTV indices between the CCC and AXB calculations for IMRT and VMAT, while differences between the AAA and AXB calculations were not statistically significant. For T‐spine SAbR treatment planning, the CCC calculations give a statistically significant overestimation of target dose compared to AXB. AAA underestimates target dose with no statistical significance compared to AXB. Further study is needed to determine the clinical impact of these findings.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.53.Ly

Evaluation of the radiotherapy treatment planning in the presence of a magnetic valve tissue expander

The combination of radiotherapy treatments and breast reconstruction, using temporary tissue expanders, generates several concerns due to the presence of a magnetic valve inside the radiation field. The objective of this work is to evaluate a radiotherapy treatment planning for a patient using a tissue expander. Isodose curve maps, obtained using radiochromic films, were compared to the ones calculated with two different dose calculation algorithms of the Eclipse radiotherapy Treatment Planning System (TPS), considering the presence or absence of the heterogeneity. The TPS calculation considering the presence of the heterogeneity shows changes around 5% in the isodose curves when they were compared with the calculation without heterogeneity correction. This calculation did not take in account the real density value of the heterogeneity. This limitation was quantified to be around 10% in comparison with the TPS calculation and experimental measurements using the radiochromic film. These results show that the magnetic valve should be taken in account in dose calculations of the TPS. With respect to the AAA and Pencil Beam Convolution algorithms, when the calculation is compared with the real distribution, AAA presents a distribution more similar to experimental dose distribution.

How air influences radiation dose deposition in multiwell culture plates: a Monte Carlo simulation of radiation geometry

Radiation of experimental culture cells on plates with various wells can cause a risk of underdosage as a result of the existence of multiple air-water interfaces. The objective of our study was to quantify this error in culture plates with multiple wells. Radiation conditions were simulated with the GAMOS code, based on the GEANT4 code, and this was compared with a simulation performed with PENELOPE and measured data. We observed a slight underdosage of ∼ 4% on the most superficial half of the culture medium. We believe that this underdosage does not have a significant effect on the dose received by culture cells deposited in a monolayer and adhered to the base of the wells.

Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One of the newer audit modalities operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) involves audits of treatment planning systems (TPS) in radiotherapy. The main focus of the audit is the dosimetry verification of the delivery of a radiation treatment plan for three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy using high energy photon beams. The audit has been carried out in eight European countries - Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland and Portugal. The corresponding results are presented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The TPS audit reviews the dosimetry, treatment planning and radiotherapy delivery processes using the 'end-to-end' approach, i.e. following the pathway similar to that of the patient, through imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit is implemented at the national level with IAEA assistance. The national counterparts conduct the TPS audit at local radiotherapy centres through on-site visits. TPS calculated doses are compared with ion chamber measurements performed in an anthropomorphic phantom for eight test cases per algorithm/beam. A set of pre-defined agreement criteria is used to analyse the performance of TPSs.

RESULTS

TPS audit was carried out in 60 radiotherapy centres. In total, 190 data sets (combination of algorithm and beam quality) have been collected and reviewed. Dosimetry problems requiring interventions were discovered in about 10% of datasets. In addition, suboptimal beam modelling in TPSs was discovered in a number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS audit project using the IAEA methodology has verified the treatment planning system calculations for 3D conformal radiotherapy in a group of radiotherapy centres in Europe. It contributed to achieving better understanding of the performance of TPSs and helped to resolve issues related to imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning.

Teflon cylindrical phantom for delivery quality assurance of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)

At our institution the standard delivery quality assurance (DQA) procedure for tomotherapy plans is accomplished with a water equivalent phantom, EDR2 film, and ion chamber point-dose measurements. Most plans deliver at most 5 Gy to the dose plane; however, recently a stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) protocol has produced plans delivering upwards of 12 Gy to the film plane. EDR2 film saturates at a dose of ~ 7 Gy, requiring a modification of our DQA procedure for SBRT plans. To reduce the dose to the film plane and accommodate a possible move to SBRT using Varian RapidArc, a Teflon phantom has been constructed and tested. Our Teflon phantom is cylindrical in shape and of a similar design to the standard phantom. The phantom was MVCT scanned on the TomoTherapy system with images imported into the TomoTherapy and Varian Eclipse planning systems. Phantom images were smoothed to reduce artifacts for treatment planning purposes. Verification SBRT plans were delivered with film and point-dose benchmarked against the standard procedure. Verification tolerance criteria were 3% dose difference for chamber measurements and a gamma pass rate &gt; 90% for film (criteria: 3 mm DTA, 3% dose difference, 10% threshold). The phantom sufficiently reduced dose to the film plane for DQA of SBRT plans. Both planning systems calculated accurate point doses in phantom, with the largest differences being 2.4% and 4.4% for TomoTherapy and Rapid Arc plans. Measured dose distributions correlated well with planning system calculations (γ &lt; 1 for &gt; 95%). These results were comparable to the standard phantom. The Teflon phantom appears to be a potential option for SBRT DQA. Preliminary data show that the planning systems are capable of calculating point doses in the Teflon, and the dose to the film plane is reduced sufficiently to allow for a direct measured DQA without the need for dose rescaling.

Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems in Serbia: national audit

Background

Independent external audits play an important role in quality assurance programme in radiation oncology. The audit supported by the IAEA in Serbia was designed to review the whole chain of activities in 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) workflow, from patient data acquisition to treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit was based on the IAEA recommendations and focused on dosimetry part of the treatment planning and delivery processes.

Methods

The audit was conducted in three radiotherapy departments of Serbia. An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with a computed tomography unit (CT) and treatment plans for eight different test cases involving various beam configurations suggested by the IAEA were prepared on local treatment planning systems (TPSs). The phantom was irradiated following the treatment plans for these test cases and doses in specific points were measured with an ionization chamber. The differences between the measured and calculated doses were reported.

Results

The measurements were conducted for different photon beam energies and TPS calculation algorithms. The deviation between the measured and calculated values for all test cases made with advanced algorithms were within the agreement criteria, while the larger deviations were observed for simpler algorithms. The number of measurements with results outside the agreement criteria increased with the increase of the beam energy and decreased with TPS calculation algorithm sophistication. Also, a few errors in the basic dosimetry data in TPS were detected and corrected.

Conclusions

The audit helped the users to better understand the operational features and limitations of their TPSs and resulted in increased confidence in dose calculation accuracy using TPSs. The audit results indicated the shortcomings of simpler algorithms for the test cases performed and, therefore the transition to more advanced algorithms is highly desirable.

Clinical validation of the Acuros XB photon dose calculation algorithm, a grid-based Boltzmann equation solver

INTRODUCTION

A new algorithm that uses a grid-based technique to solve the linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) has been developed to improve the accuracy and speed of external photon beam treatment planning calculations. The aim of this study was to test the accuracy of this algorithm in both heterogeneous and homogeneous media.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Output factors, depth dose curves and profiles for symmetric fields were measured in water using diamond and ionization chamber detectors. Furthermore, asymmetric fields, fields collimated with the multi-leaf collimator, enhanced dynamic wedge fields as well as fields with different source-skin distances were measured. Various test plans were created on a CIRS thorax phantom including tissue-equivalent inserts and corresponding dose distributions within the phantom were measured with radiochromic films. The new grid-based LBTE solver, Acuros XB (Eclipse version 10.0, Varian Medical Systems, CA, USA) was used to calculate dose distributions for all field configurations and plans, for both 6 MV and 15 MV photons. Calculations were also performed with AAA, a standard convolution algorithm.

RESULTS

Compared to measurements, the output factors were within 1% for Acuros XB. For the depth doses, the average deviations were within 1% in dose and 1 mm in distance to agreement (DTA). For the profiles, the deviations were within 2%/1 mm except near the penumbra. Similar results were obtained for the other field configurations. Good agreement with AAA was also found. For the plans calculated on the CIRS phantom, the number of points meeting the gamma criterion of 3% in dose and 3 mm in DTA was higher with Acuros XB (98% for 6 MV; 100% for 15 MV) than with AAA (94% for 6 MV; 96% for 15 MV).

CONCLUSION

Dose calculations with the Acuros XB algorithm in homogeneous media are in good agreement with both measurements and the AAA algorithm. In heterogeneous media, the Acuros XB algorithm is superior to AAA in both lung and bony material.

Sistema computacional para dosimetria de nêutrons e fótons baseado em métodos estocásticos aplicado a radioterapia e radiologia

OBJETIVO: Este artigo mostra um procedimento de conversão de imagens de tomografia computadorizada ou de ressonância magnética em modelo de voxels tridimensional para fim de dosimetria. Este modelo é uma representação personalizada do paciente que pode ser usado na simulação, via código MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle), de transporte de partículas nucleares, reproduzindo o processo estocástico de interação de partículas nucleares com os tecidos humanos. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: O sistema computacional desenvolvido, denominado SISCODES, é uma ferramenta para planejamento computacional tridimensional de tratamentos radioterápicos ou procedimentos radiológicos. Partindo de imagens tomográficas do paciente, o plano de tratamento é modelado e simulado. São então mostradas as doses absorvidas, por meio de curvas de isodoses superpostas ao modelo. O SISCODES acopla o modelo tridimensional ao código MCNP5, que simula o protocolo de exposição à radiação ionizante. RESULTADOS: O SISCODES vem sendo utilizado no grupo de pesquisa NRI/CNPq na criação de modelos de voxels antropomórficos e antropométricos que são acoplados ao código MCNP para modelar braquiterapias e teleterapias aplicadas a tumores em pulmões, pelve, coluna, cabeça, pescoço, e outros. Os módulos atualmente desenvolvidos no SISCODES são apresentados junto com casos exemplos de planejamento radioterápico. CONCLUSÃO: O SISCODES provê de maneira rápida a criação de modelos de voxels personalizados de qualquer paciente que podem ser usados em simulações por códigos estocásticos tipo MCNP. A combinação da simulação via MCNP com um modelo personalizado do paciente traz grandes melhorias na dosimetria de tratamentos radioterápicos.

Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm in lung equivalent heterogeneities with and without bone equivalent heterogeneities

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors evaluated the accuracy of dose calculations performed by the convolution/superposition based anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) in lung equivalent heterogeneities with and without bone equivalent heterogeneities.

METHODS

Calculations of PDDs using the AAA and Monte Carlo simulations (MCNP4C) were compared to ionization chamber measurements with a heterogeneous phantom consisting of lung equivalent and bone equivalent materials. Both 6 and 10 MV photon beams of 4 x 4 and 10 x 10 cm(2) field sizes were used for the simulations. Furthermore, changes of energy spectrum with depth for the heterogeneous phantom using MCNP were calculated.

RESULTS

The ionization chamber measurements and MCNP calculations in a lung equivalent phantom were in good agreement, having an average deviation of only 0.64 +/- 0.45%. For both 6 and 10 MV beams, the average deviation was less than 2% for the 4 x 4 and 10 x 10 cm(2) fields in the water-lung equivalent phantom and the 4 x 4 cm(2) field in the water-lung-bone equivalent phantom. Maximum deviations for the 10 x 10 cm(2) field in the lung equivalent phantom before and after the bone slab were 5.0% and 4.1%, respectively. The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated an increase of the low-energy photon component in these regions, more for the 10 X 10 cm(2) field compared to the 4 x 4 cm(2) field.

CONCLUSIONS

The low-energy photon by Monte Carlo simulation component increases sharply in larger fields when there is a significant presence of bone equivalent heterogeneities. This leads to great changes in the build-up and build-down at the interfaces of different density materials. The AAA calculation modeling of the effect is not deemed to be sufficiently accurate.

Monte carlo simulation of bony heterogeneity effects on dose profile for small irradiation field in radiotherapy

In the radiotherapy treatment planning of a lesion located in the head region with small field radiation beams, the heterogeneity corrections play an important role. In this work, we investigated the influence of a bony heterogeneity on dose profile inside a soft tissue phantom containing a bony material. PDD curves were obtained by simulation using the Monte Carlo code EGSnrc and employing Eclipse(R) treatment planning system algorithms (Batho, Modified Batho, Equivalent TAR and Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm) for a 15 MV photon beam and field sizes of 2x2 and 10x10 cm(2). The Equivalent TAR method exhibited better agreement with Monte Carlo simulations for the 2x2 cm(2) field size. The magnitude of the effect on PDD due to the bony heterogeneity for 1x1, 2x2 and 10x10 cm(2) field sizes increases to 10, 5 and 3%, respectively.

[Comparison of RTPS and Monte Carlo dose distributions in heterogeneous phantoms for photon beams]

The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions from three different RTPS with those from Monte Carlo (MC) calculations and measurements, in heterogeneous phantoms for photon beams. This study used four algorithms for RTPS: AAA (analytical anisotropic algorithm) implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, CC (collapsed cone) superposition from the Pinnacle (Philips), and MGS (multigrid superposition) and FFT (fast Fourier transform) convolution from XiO (CMS). The dose distributions from these algorithms were compared with those from MC and measurements in a set of heterogeneous phantoms. Eclipse/AAA underestimated the dose inside the lung region for low energies of 4 and 6 MV. This is because Eclipse/AAA do not adequately account for a scaling of the spread of the pencil (lateral electron transport) based on changes in the electron density at low photon energies. The dose distributions from Pinnacle/CC and XiO/MGS almost agree with those of MC and measurements at low photon energies, but increase errors at high energy of 15 MV, especially for a small field of 3x3 cm(2). The FFT convolution extremely overestimated the dose inside the lung slab compared to MC. The dose distributions from the superposition algorithms almost agree with those from MC as well as measured values at 4 and 6 MV. The dose errors for Eclipse/AAA are lager in lung model phantoms for 4 and 6 MV. It is necessary to use the algorithms comparable to superposition for accuracy of dose calculations in heterogeneous regions.

Evaluation of the usefulness of a MOSFET detector in an anthropomorphic phantom for 6-MV photon beam

In order to evaluate the usefulness of a metal oxide-silicon field-effect transistor (MOSFET) detector as a in vivo dosimeter, we performed in vivo dosimetry using the MOSFET detector with an anthropomorphic phantom. We used the RANDO phantom as an anthropomorphic phantom, and dose measurements were carried out in the abdominal, thoracic, and head and neck regions for simple square field sizes of 10 x 10, 5 x 5, and 3 x 3 cm(2) with a 6-MV photon beam. The dose measured by the MOSFET detector was verified by the dose calculations of the superposition (SP) algorithm in the XiO radiotherapy treatment-planning system. In most cases, the measured doses agreed with the results of the SP algorithm within +/-3%. Our results demonstrated the utility of the MOSFET detector for in vivo dosimetry even in the presence of clinical tissue inhomogeneities.

Monte Carlo calculations of correction factors for plastic phantoms in clinical photon and electron beam dosimetry

The purpose of this study is to calculate correction factors for plastic water (PW) and plastic water diagnostic-therapy (PWDT) phantoms in clinical photon and electron beam dosimetry using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system. A water-to-plastic ionization conversion factor k(pl) for PW and PWDT was computed for several commonly used Farmer-type ionization chambers with different wall materials in the range of 4-18 MV photon beams. For electron beams, a depth-scaling factor c(pl) and a chamber-dependent fluence correction factor h(pl) for both phantoms were also calculated in combination with NACP-02 and Roos plane-parallel ionization chambers in the range of 4-18 MeV. The h(pl) values for the plane-parallel chambers were evaluated from the electron fluence correction factor phi(pl)w and wall correction factors P(wall,w) and P(wall,pl) for a combination of water or plastic materials. The calculated k(pl) and h(pl) values were verified by comparison with the measured values. A set of k(pl) values computed for the Farmer-type chambers was equal to unity within 0.5% for PW and PWDT in photon beams. The k(pl) values also agreed within their combined uncertainty with the measured data. For electron beams, the c(pl) values computed for PW and PWDT were from 0.998 to 1.000 and from 0.992 to 0.997, respectively, in the range of 4-18 MeV. The phi(pl)w values for PW and PWDT were from 0.998 to 1.001 and from 1.004 to 1.001, respectively, at a reference depth in the range of 4-18 MeV. The difference in P(wall) between water and plastic materials for the plane-parallel chambers was 0.8% at a maximum. Finally, h(pl) values evaluated for plastic materials were equal to unity within 0.6% for NACP-02 and Roos chambers. The h(pl) values also agreed within their combined uncertainty with the measured data. The absorbed dose to water from ionization chamber measurements in PW and PWDT plastic materials corresponds to that in water within 1%. Both phantoms can thus be used as a substitute for water for photon and electron dosimetry.

Evaluation of PENFAST--a fast Monte Carlo code for dose calculations in photon and electron radiotherapy treatment planning

The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the potential of accelerated dose calculations, using the fast Monte Carlo (MC) code referred to as PENFAST, rather than the conventional MC code PENELOPE, without losing accuracy in the computed dose. For this purpose, experimental measurements of dose distributions in homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantoms were compared with simulated results using both PENELOPE and PENFAST. The simulations and experiments were performed using a Saturne 43 linac operated at 12 MV (photons), and at 18 MeV (electrons). Pre-calculated phase space files (PSFs) were used as input data to both the PENELOPE and PENFAST dose simulations. Since depth-dose and dose profile comparisons between simulations and measurements in water were found to be in good agreement (within +/-1% to 1 mm), the PSF calculation is considered to have been validated. In addition, measured dose distributions were compared to simulated results in a set of clinically relevant, inhomogeneous phantoms, consisting of lung and bone heterogeneities in a water tank. In general, the PENFAST results agree to within a 1% to 1 mm difference with those produced by PENELOPE, and to within a 2% to 2 mm difference with measured values. Our study thus provides a pre-clinical validation of the PENFAST code. It also demonstrates that PENFAST provides accurate results for both photon and electron beams, equivalent to those obtained with PENELOPE. CPU time comparisons between both MC codes show that PENFAST is generally about 9-21 times faster than PENELOPE.