Assessment of Eclipse electron Monte Carlo output prediction for various topologies

Curvature correction factors for the independent verification of monitor units of electron treatment plans calculated in Eclipse

Electron beam dosimetry is sensitive to the surface contour of the patient. Over 10% difference between Treatment Planning System (TPS) and independent monitor-unit (IMU) calculations have been reported in the literature. Similar results were observed in our clinic between Radformation ClearCalc IMU and Eclipse TPS electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm (v.16.1). This paper presents data measured under 3D printed spherical and cylindrical phantoms to validate the eMC algorithm in the presence of curved geometries. Measurements were performed with multiple detectors and compared to calculations made in Eclipse for the 6, 9 and 12 MeV electron energies. This data is used to create curvature correction factors (CCFs), defined as the ratio of the detector reading with the curved-surface phantom to a flat phantom at the same depth. The mean difference between the TPS calculated and measured CCFs using the NACP, Diode E, microSilicon, and microDiamond detectors were 1.3, 0.9, 0.7 and 0.7% respectively, with maximum differences of 4.5, 2.3, 1.9, and 1.8% respectively. Applying CCFs to previous failing patient IMU calculations improved agreement to the TPS. CCFs were implemented in our clinic for patient-specific IMU calculations with the assistance of a ESAPI script.

Electron Beam Measurements Employing Electron Montecarlo Algorithm on TrueBeam STx® and Clinac iX® Linear Accelerators

Electron beam measurement comparison between TrueBeam STx® and Clinac iX® established. Data evaluation of eMC-calculated and measured for TrueBeam STx® performed. Dosimetric parameters measured including depth dose curves for each applicator, percentage depth dose (PDDs) curves without applicator, the profile in-air for a large field size 40×40 cm2, and the Absolute Dose (cGy/MU) for each applicator using a large water phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany), employing Roos and Markus plane-parallel ionization chambers. The data were examined for five electron beams of Varian’s TrueBeam STx® and Clinac iX® machines. A comparison between measurement PDDs and calculated by the Eclipse electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm was performed to validate Truebeam STx® commissioning. The measured data indicated that electron beam PDDs from the TrueBeam STx® machine are well matched to those from Clinac iX® machine. The quality index R50 for applicator 15×15 cm2 was in the tolerance intervals. However, Surface dose (Ds) increases with increasing energy for both accelerators. Comparisons between the measured and eMC-calculated values revealed that the R100, R90, R80, and R50 values mostly agree within 5 mm. Measured and calculated bremsstrahlung tail Rp correlates well statistically. Ds agrees mostly within 2%. Electron beams were successfully validated for TrueBeam STx®, a good agreement between modeled and measured data was observed.

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.

[Comparison of Monitor Unit between Electron Monte Carlo Algorithm by Different Dose Normalization Methods and Conventional Manual Calculation]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancy between the monitor unit (MU) calculated by different dose normalization methods in the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm and the conventional manual MU. In the water phantom condition, the manual MU obtained from the measured output factor was compared with the calculated MU by the eMC algorithm, using 24 different irradiation field shapes and several different energies of electron beam. In the breast boost condition, calculated MUs by both calculation methods were evaluated for 45 cases. As a result, the MUs computed by the eMC algorithm in the water phantom varied according to the dose normalization methods, and the mean±standard deviation of the difference between the manual and calculated MU were 1.1±1.4%, 0.0±1.0% and 0.4±1.2% in peak depth normalization (PN), no plan normalization (NPN) and 100% at body maximum (100%BM), respectively. In breast-boost cases, the MU difference between the manual and the calculated MU were 6.1±3.7%, 3.4±2.8% and 1.1±2.9% in PN, NPN and 100%BM, respectively. We revealed that the resultant MU calculated by eMC algorithm was dependent on the dose normalization method and the averaged differences exceeded 6% in PN, especially in breast boost condition. When using the eMC in the breast boost condition, it is desirable to select an appropriate dose normalization method according to dose prescription policies at each facility.

Full Monte Carlo and measurement-based overall performance assessment of improved clinical implementation of eMC algorithm with emphasis on lower energy range

New version 13.6.23 of the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm in Varian Eclipse™ treatment planning system has a model for 4MeV electron beam and some general improvements for dose calculation. This study provides the first overall accuracy assessment of this algorithm against full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for electron beams from 4MeV to 16MeV with most emphasis on the lower energy range. Beams in a homogeneous water phantom and clinical treatment plans were investigated including measurements in the water phantom. Two different material sets were used with full MC: (1) the one applied in the eMC algorithm and (2) the one included in the Eclipse™ for other algorithms. The results of clinical treatment plans were also compared to those of the older eMC version 11.0.31. In the water phantom the dose differences against the full MC were mostly less than 3% with distance-to-agreement (DTA) values within 2mm. Larger discrepancies were obtained in build-up regions, at depths near the maximum electron ranges and with small apertures. For the clinical treatment plans the overall dose differences were mostly within 3% or 2mm with the first material set. Larger differences were observed for a large 4MeV beam entering curved patient surface with extended SSD and also in regions of large dose gradients. Still the DTA values were within 3mm. The discrepancies between the eMC and the full MC were generally larger for the second material set. The version 11.0.31 performed always inferiorly, when compared to the 13.6.23.