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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Piffer ◽  
Marta Casati ◽  
Livia Marrazzo ◽  
Chiara Arilli ◽  
Silvia Calusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Clinical Dose ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Secondary Dose

Radiotherapy dose calculations in high-Z materials: comprehensive comparison between experiment, Monte Carlo, and conventional planning algorithms (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhangkai Cheng ◽  
Regina Bromley ◽  
Brad Oborn ◽  
Jeremy Booth
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Spinal Metastases ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
High Energy ◽  
The Body ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Ct Density

BACKGROUND Despite spinal metastases accounting for 10% to 30% of new tumors diagnoses annually, and radiation therapy is a standard treatment technique, the studies discussing the effects of small-size spinal prostheses on spinal radiation therapy are limited. OBJECTIVE To compare the accuracies of the AAA and AcurosXB dose calculation algorithms and to predict the change in the down-stream and lateral dose deposition of high energy photons in the presence of material with densities higher that commonly found in the body. METHODS Metal rods of titanium (d =4.5g/m2), stainless steel (d=8g/cm2) and tungsten (d=19.25 g/cm2) were positioned in a phantom. Film was position behind and laterally to the rods to measure the dose distribution for a 6 MV, 18 MV and 10 FFF photon beams. A DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo simulation of the experimental setup was performed The AAA and AcurosXB dose calculation algorithms were used to predict the dose distributions. The dose from film and DOSXYZnrc were compared with the dose predicted by AAA and AcurosXB. RESULTS AAA overestimated the dose behind the rods by 15-25% and underestimated the dose laterally to the rods by 5-15% depending on the range of materials and energies investigated. AcurosXB overestimated the dose behind the rods by 1-18% and underestimated the dose laterally to the rods by up to 5% depending on the range of material and energies investigated. CONCLUSIONS AAA cannot deliver clinically acceptable dose calculation results at a distance less than 10 mm from metals, for a single field treatment. Acuros XB is able to handle metals of low atomic numbers (Z ≤ 26), but not tungsten (Z = 74). This can be due to the restriction of the CT-density table in EclipseTM TPS, which has an upper HU limit of 10501.

Comparison of CCC and ETAR dose calculation algorithms in pituitary adenoma radiation treatment planning; Monte Carlo evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Tanha ◽  
S. R. Mahdavi ◽  
G. Geraily
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Pituitary Adenoma ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

AbstractAimsTo verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.Materials and methodsAfter validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar field technique. This technique uses 30 degree physical wedge and 18 MV photon beams.ResultsDose distribution findings showed significant difference between ETAR and CCC of delivered dose in pituitary irradiation. The differences between MC and dose calculation algorithms were 6.40 ± 3.44% for CCC and 10.36 ± 4.37% for ETAR. None of the algorithms could predict actual dose in air cavity areas in comparison to the MC method.ConclusionsDifference between calculation and true dose value affects radiation treatment outcome and normal tissue complication probability. It is of prime concern to select appropriate treatment planning system according to our clinical situation. It is further emphasised that MC can be the method of choice for clinical dose calculation algorithms verification.

Treatment planning aspects and Monte Carlo methods in proton therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (17) ◽  
pp. 1540022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael K. Fix ◽  
Peter Manser
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Proton Radiotherapy ◽  
Depth Dose ◽  
Accurate Dose ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Calculated Dose ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Proton Track ◽  
Near Future

Over the last years, the interest in proton radiotherapy is rapidly increasing. Protons provide superior physical properties compared with conventional radiotherapy using photons. These properties result in depth dose curves with a large dose peak at the end of the proton track and the finite proton range allows sparing the distally located healthy tissue. These properties offer an increased flexibility in proton radiotherapy, but also increase the demand in accurate dose estimations. To carry out accurate dose calculations, first an accurate and detailed characterization of the physical proton beam exiting the treatment head is necessary for both currently available delivery techniques: scattered and scanned proton beams. Since Monte Carlo (MC) methods follow the particle track simulating the interactions from first principles, this technique is perfectly suited to accurately model the treatment head. Nevertheless, careful validation of these MC models is necessary. While for the dose estimation pencil beam algorithms provide the advantage of fast computations, they are limited in accuracy. In contrast, MC dose calculation algorithms overcome these limitations and due to recent improvements in efficiency, these algorithms are expected to improve the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions and to be introduced in clinical routine in the near future.

Comparison of dose calculation algorithms with Monte Carlo methods for photon arcs

2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 2686-2694 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. L. Chow ◽  
Eugene Wong ◽  
Jeff Z. Chen ◽  
Jake Van Dyk
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Monte Carlo Methods ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document