MODELING OF PHOTON AND ELECTRON BEAMS FOR MONTE CARLO SIMULATION BASED ON TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
KH.T EIRABA. ◽  
KH EL SHAHAT. ◽  
.A.A EL DIB ◽  
.E.M AL ASHKAR
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo Simulation ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Electron Beams ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Simulation Based

SU-FF-T-133: Commissioning Electron Beams with Monte Carlo Simulation Based On Large Field Measurements

2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (6Part8) ◽  
pp. 2079-2079
Author(s):  
B Faddegon ◽  
J Lehmann ◽  
J Chen ◽  
E Schreiber
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo Simulation ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Electron Beams ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Simulation Based

scholarly journals Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-190
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abazarfard ◽  
Payam Azadeh ◽  
Ahmad Mostaar
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Small Fields ◽  
Mc Simulation ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document