Search

We have developed a fast and accurate in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) secondary monitor unit (MU) check method, based on the EGSnrc system, for independent verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning system dose calculations, in accordance with TG‐114 recommendations. For a VMAT treatment plan created for a Varian Trilogy linac, DICOM information was exported from Eclipse. An open‐source platform was used to generate input files for dose calculations using the EGSnrc framework. The full VMAT plan simulation employed 107 histories, and was parallelized to run on a computer cluster. The resulting 3ddose matrices were converted to the DICOM format using CERR and imported into Eclipse. The method was evaluated using 35 clinical VMAT plans of various treatment sites. For each plan, the doses calculated with the MC approach at four three‐dimensional reference points were compared to the corresponding Eclipse calculations, as well as calculations performed using the clinical software package, MUCheck. Each MC arc simulation of 107 particles required 13–25 min of total time, including processing and calculation. The average discrepancies in calculated dose values between the MC method and Eclipse were 2.03% (compared to 3.43% for MUCheck) for prostate cases, 2.45% (3.22% for MUCheck) for head and neck cases, 1.7% (5.51% for MUCheck) for brain cases, and 2.84% (5.64% for MUCheck) for miscellaneous cases. Of 276 comparisons, 201 showed greater agreement between the treatment planning system and MC vs MUCheck. The largest discrepancies between MC and MUCheck were found in regions of high dose gradients and heterogeneous densities. By parallelizing the calculations, point‐dose accuracies of 2‐7%, sufficient for clinical secondary checks, can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. As computer clusters and/or cloud computing become more widespread, this method will be useful in most clinical setups.

Despite the improvements in the dose calculation models of the commercial treatment planning systems (TPS), their ability to accurately predict patient dose is still limited. One of the limitations is caused by the simplified model of the multileaf collimator (MLC). The aim of this study was to develop a Monte Carlo (MC) method‐based independent patient dose validation system with an elaborate MLC model for more accurate dose evaluation. Varian Clinac 2300 IX was simulated using Geant4 toolkits, after which MC commissioning with measurements was performed to validate the simulation model. A DICOM‐RT interface was developed to obtain the beam delivery conditions including the hundreds of MLC motions. Finally, the TPS dose distributions were compared with the MC dose distributions for water phantom cases and a patient case. Our results show that the TPS overestimated the absolute abutting leakage dose in the closed MLC field, with about 20% more of the maximum dose than that of the MC calculation. For water phantom cases, the dose distributions inside the target region were almost identical with the dose difference of less than 2%, while the dose near the edge of the target shows difference about 10% between Geant4 and TPS due to geometrical differences in MLC model. For the patient analysis, the Geant4 and TPS doses of all organs were matched well within 1.4% of the prescribed dose. However, for organs located in areas with high ratio of leaf pairs with distances less than 10 mm leaf pair (LP (

Purpose/objectives To evaluate the plan quality and treatment delivery efficiency of single‐isocenter/two‐lesions volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Materials/methods Eight consecutive patients with two peripherally located early stage nonsmall‐cell‐lung cancer (NSCLC) lung lesions underwent single‐isocenter highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT SBRT treatment in our institution. A single‐isocenter was placed between the two lesions. Doses were 54 or 50 Gy in 3 and 5 fractions respectively. Patients were treated every other day. Plans were calculated in Eclipse with AcurosXB algorithm and normalized to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. For comparison, two‐isocenter plans (isocenter placed centrally in each target) were retrospectively created. Conformity indices (CIs), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), gradient distance (GD), and D2cm were calculated. The normal lung V5, V10, V20, mean lung dose (MLD) and other organs at risk (OARs) doses were evaluated. Total number of monitor units (MUs), beam‐on time, and patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) results were recorded. Results The mean isocenter to tumor distance was 6.7 ± 2.3 cm. The mean combined PTV was 44.0 ± 23.4 cc. There was no clinically significant difference in CI, HI, GD, GI, D2cm, and V20 including most of the OARs between single‐isocenter and two‐isocenter lung SBRT plans, evaluated per RTOG guidelines. However, for single‐isocenter plans as the distance between the lesions increased, the V5, V10, and MLD increased, marginally. The total number of MUs and beam‐on time was reduced by a factor of 1.5 for a single‐isocenter plan compared to a two‐isocenter plan. The single‐isocenter/two‐lesions VMAT lung SBRT QA plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 98.1 ± 3.2% for clinical gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm. Conclusion The SBRT treatment of two peripherally located lung lesions with a centrally placed single‐isocenter was dosimetrically equivalent to two‐isocenter plans. Faster treatment delivery for single‐isocenter treatment can improve patient compliance and reduce the amount of intrafraction motion errors for well‐suited patients.

Purpose To explain the deviation observed between measured and Monaco calculated dose profiles for a small field (i.e., alternating open‐closed MLC pattern). A Monte Carlo (MC) model of an Elekta Infinity linac with Agility MLC was created and validated against measurements. In addition, an analytic model which predicts the fluence at the isocenter plane was used to study the impact of multiple beam parameters on the accuracy of dose calculations for small fields. Methods A detailed MC model of a 6 MV Elekta Infinity linac with Agility MLC was created in EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and validated against measurements. An analytic model using primary and secondary virtual photon sources was created and benchmarked against the MC simulations and the impact of multiple beam parameters on the accuracy of the model for a small field was investigated. Both models were used to explain discrepancies observed between measured/EGSnrc simulated and Monaco calculated dose profiles for alternating open‐closed MLC leaves. Results MC‐simulated dose profiles (PDDs, cross‐ and in‐line profiles, etc.) were found to be in very good agreements with measurements. The best fit for the leaf bank rotation was found to be 9 mrad to model the defocusing of Agility MLC. Moreover, a very good agreement was observed between results from the analytic model and MC simulations for a small field. Modifying the radial size of the incident electron beam in the BEAMnrc model improved the agreement between Monaco and EGSnrc calculated dose profiles by approximately 16% and 30% in the position of maxima and minima, respectively. Conclusion Accurate modeling of the full‐width‐half‐maximum (FWHM) of the primary photon source as well as the MLC leaf design (leaf bank rotation, etc.) is essential for accurate calculations of dose delivered by small radiation fields when using virtual source or MC models of the beam.

Therapeutic radiation to cancer patients is accompanied by unintended radiation to organs outside the treatment field. It is known that the model‐based dose algorithm has limitation in calculating the out‐of‐field doses. This study evaluated the out‐of‐field dose calculated by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (v.11 with AAA algorithm) in realistic treatment plans with the goal of estimating the uncertainties of calculated organ doses. Photon beam phase‐space files for TrueBeam linear accelerator were provided by Varian. These were used as incident sources in EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transport through the downstream jaws and MLC. Dynamic movements of the MLC leaves were fully modeled based on treatment plans using IMRT or VMAT techniques. The Monte Carlo calculated out‐of‐field doses were then compared with those calculated by Eclipse. The dose comparisons were performed for different beam energies and treatment sites, including head‐and‐neck, lung, and pelvis. For 6 MV (FF/FFF), 10 MV (FF/FFF), and 15 MV (FF) beams, Eclipse underestimated out‐of‐field local doses by 30%–50% compared with Monte Carlo calculations when the local dose was

Deformable image registration (DIR) is the key process for contour propagation and dose accumulation in adaptive radiation therapy (ART). However, currently, ART suffers from a lack of understanding of “robustness” of the process involving the image contour based on DIR and subsequent dose variations caused by algorithm itself and the presetting parameters. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the DIR caused variations for contour propagation and dose accumulation during ART using the RayStation treatment planning system. Ten head and neck cancer patients were selected for retrospective studies. Contours were performed by a single radiation oncologist and new treatment plans were generated on the weekly CT scans for all patients. For each DIR process, four deformation vector fields (DVFs) were generated to propagate contours and accumulate weekly dose by the following algorithms: (a) ANACONDA with simple presetting parameters, (b) ANACONDA with detailed presetting parameters, (c) MORFEUS with simple presetting parameters, and (d) MORFEUS with detailed presetting parameters. The geometric evaluation considered DICE coefficient and Hausdorff distance. The dosimetric evaluation included D95, Dmax, Dmean, Dmin, and Homogeneity Index. For geometric evaluation, the DICE coefficient variations of the GTV were found to be 0.78 ± 0.11, 0.96 ± 0.02, 0.64 ± 0.15, and 0.91 ± 0.03 for simple ANACONDA, detailed ANACONDA, simple MORFEUS, and detailed MORFEUS, respectively. For dosimetric evaluation, the corresponding Homogeneity Index variations were found to be 0.137 ± 0.115, 0.006 ± 0.032, 0.197 ± 0.096, and 0.006 ± 0.033, respectively. The coherent geometric and dosimetric variations also consisted in large organs and small organs. Overall, the results demonstrated that the contour propagation and dose accumulation in clinical ART were influenced by the DIR algorithm, and to a greater extent by the presetting parameters. A quality assurance procedure should be established for the proper use of a commercial DIR for adaptive radiation therapy.

Purpose As an alternative to cylindrical applicators, air‐inflated balloon applicators have been introduced into high‐dose‐rate (HDR) vaginal cuff brachytherapy to achieve sufficient dose to the vagina mucosa as well as to spare organs at risk, mainly the rectum and bladder. Commercial treatment planning systems which employ formulae in the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG 43) report do not take into account tissue inhomogeneity. Consequently, the low‐density air in a balloon applicator induces different doses delivered to the mucosa from planned by these planning systems. In this study, we investigated the dosimetric effects of the air in a balloon applicator using the Monte Carlo (MC) method. Methods The thirteen‐catheter Capri™ applicator by Varian™ for vaginal cuff brachytherapy was modeled together with the Ir‐192 radioactive source for the microSelectron™ Digital (HDR‐V3) afterloader by Elekta™ using the MCNP MC code. The validity of charged particle equilibrium (CPE) with an air balloon present was evaluated by comparing the kerma and the absorbed dose at various distances from the applicator surface. By comparing MC results with and without air cavity present, dosimetric effects of the air cavity were studied. Clinical patient cases with optimized multiple Ir‐192 source dwell positions were also explored. Four treatment plans by the Oncentra Brachy™ treatment planning system were re‐calculated with MCNP. Results CPE fails in the vicinity of the air‐water interface. One millimeter beyond the air‐water boundary the kerma and the absorbed dose are equal (0.2% difference), regardless of air cavity dimensions or iridium source locations in the balloon. The air cavity results in dose increase, due to less photon absorption in the air than in water or solid materials. The extent of the increase depends on the diameter of the air balloon. The average increment is 3.8%, 4.5% and 5.3% for 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 cm applicators, respectively. In patient cases, the dose to the mucosa is also increased with the air cavity present. The point dose difference between Oncentra Brachy and MC at 5 mm prescription depth is 8% at most and 5% on average. Conclusions Except in the vicinity of the air‐mucosa interface, the dosimetric difference is not significant enough to mandate tissue inhomogeneity correction in HDR treatment planning.

For passive scattering proton therapy systems, neutron contamination is the main concern both from an occupational and patient safety perspective. The Mevion S250 compact proton therapy system is the first of its kind, offering an in‐room cyclotron design which prompts more concern for shielding assessment. The purpose of this study was to accomplish an in‐depth evaluation of both the shielding design and in‐room neutron production at our facility using both Monte Carlo simulation and measurement. We found that the shielding in place at our facility is adequate, with simulated annual neutron ambient dose equivalents at 30 cm outside wall/door perimeter ranging from background to 0.07 mSv and measured dose equivalents ranging from background to 0.06 mSv. The in‐room measurements reveal that the H*/D decreases when the distance from isocenter and field size increases. Furthermore, the H*/D generally increases when the angle around isocenter increases. Our results from in‐room measurements show consistent trends with our Monte Carlo model of the Mevion system.

Purpose Lipiodol, which was used in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization before liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), remains in SBRT. Previous we reported the dose enhancement in Lipiodol using 10 MV (10×) FFF beam. In this study, we compared the dose enhancement in Lipiodol and evaluated the probability of electron generation (PEG) for the dose enhancement using flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beams. Methods FF and FFF for 6 MV (6×) and 10× beams were delivered by TrueBeam. The dose enhancement factor (DEF), energy spectrum, and PEG was calculated using Monte Carlo (MC) code BEAMnrc and heavy ion transport code system (PHITS). Results DEFs for FF and FFF 6× beams were 7.0% and 17.0% at the center of Lipiodol (depth, 6.5 cm). DEFs for FF and FFF 10× beams were 8.2% and 10.5% at the center of Lipiodol. Spectral analysis revealed that the FFF beams contained more low‐energy (0–0.3 MeV) electrons than the FF beams, and the FF beams contained more high‐energy (>0.3 MeV) electrons than the FFF beams in Lipiodol. The difference between FFF and FF beam DEFs was larger for 6× than for 10×. This occurred because the 10× beams contained more high‐energy electrons. The PEGs for photoelectric absorption and Compton scattering for the FFF beams were higher than those for the FF beams. The PEG for the photoelectric absorption was higher than that for Compton scattering. Conclusions FFF beam contained more low‐energy photons and it contributed to the dose enhancement. Energy spectra and PEGs are useful for analyzing the mechanisms of dose enhancement.

Radiation dermatitis during radiotherapy is correlated with skin dose and is a common clinical problem for head and neck and thoracic cancer patients. Therefore, accurate prediction of skin dose during treatment planning is clinically important. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of skin dose calculated by a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). We evaluated the accuracy of skin dose calculations by the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) implemented in Varian Eclipse (V.11) system. Skin dose is calculated as mean dose to a contoured structure of 0.5 cm thickness from the surface. The EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are utilized for the evaluation. The 6, 10 and 15 MV photon beams investigated are from a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. The accuracy of the MC dose calculations was validated by phantom measurements with optically stimulated luminescence detectors. The calculation accuracy of patient skin doses is studied by using CT based radiotherapy treatment plans including 3D conformal, static gantry IMRT, and VMAT treatment techniques. Results show the Varian Eclipse system underestimates skin doses by up to 14% of prescription dose for the patients studied when external body contour starts at the patient's skin. The external body contour is used in a treatment planning system to calculate dose distributions. The calculation accuracy of skin dose with Eclipse can be considerably improved to within 4% of target dose by extending the external body contour by 1 to 2 cm from the patient's skin. Dose delivered to deeper target volumes or organs at risk are not affected. Although Eclipse treatment planning system has its limitations in predicting patient skin dose, this study shows the calculation accuracy can be considerably improved to an acceptable level by extending the external body contour without affecting the dose calculation accuracy to the treatment target and internal organs at risk. This is achieved by moving the calculation entry point away from the skin.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to improve dose calculation accuracy of the simplified Monte Carlo (SMC) algorithm in the low‐dose region. Because conventional SMC algorithms calculate particle scattering in consideration of multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) only, they approximate lateral dose profiles by a single Gaussian function. However, it is well known that the low‐dose region spreads away from the beam axis, and it has been pointed out that modeling of the low‐dose region is important to calculated dose accurately. Methods A SMC algorithm, which is named modified SMC and considers not only MCS but also large angle scattering resembling hadron elastic scattering, was developed. In the modified SMC algorithm, the particle fluence varies in the longitudinal direction because the large‐angle scattering decreases residual range of particles in accordance with their scattering angle and tracking of the particles with large scattering angle is terminated at a short distance downstream from the scattering. Therefore, modified integrated depth dose (m‐IDD) tables, which are converted from measured IDD in consideration of the fluence loss, are used to calculate dose. Results In the case of a 1‐liter cubic target, the calculation accuracy was improved in comparison with that of a conventional algorithm, and the modified algorithm results agreed well with Geant4‐based simulation results; namely, 98.8% of the points satisfied the 2% dose/2 mm distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) criterion. The calculation time of the modified SMC algorithm was 1972 s in the case of 4.4 × 108 particles and 16‐threading operation of an Intel Xeon E5‐2643 (3.3‐GHz clock). Conclusions An SMC algorithm that can reproduce a laterally widespread low‐dose region was developed. According to the comparison with a Geant4‐based simulation, it was concluded that the modified SMC algorithm is useful for calculating dose of proton radiotherapy.

Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been used to generate commissioning data for the beam modeling of treatment planning system (TPS). We have developed a method called radial projection (RP) for postprocessing of MC‐simulation‐generated data. We used the RP method to reduce the statistical uncertainty of the lateral profile of proton pencil beams with axial symmetry. The RP method takes advantage of the axial symmetry of dose distribution to use the mean value of multiple independent scores as the representative score. Using the mean as the representative value rather than any individual score results in substantial reduction in statistical uncertainty. Herein, we present the concept and step‐by‐step implementation of the RP method, as well as show the advantage of the RP method over conventional measurement methods for generating lateral profile. Lateral profiles generated by both methods were compared to demonstrate the uncertainty reduction qualitatively, and standard error comparison was performed to demonstrate the reduction quantitatively. The comparisons showed that statistical uncertainty was reduced substantially by the RP method. Using the RP method to postprocess MC data, the corresponding MC simulation time was reduced by a factor of 10 without quality reduction in the generated result from the MC data. We concluded that the RP method is an effective technique to increase MC simulation efficiency for generating lateral profiles for axially symmetric pencil beams.

Objective Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. Method The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty-five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses. Results The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 ± 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are −2.06 ± 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), −0.59 ± 1.71% for Eclipse and −1.69 ± 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P-value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t-test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 ± 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are −3.89 ± 2.79% for Raystation PB, −0.25 ± 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 ± 1.95% for Raystation MC. Conclusion Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within ±3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within ±3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.

The purpose of this study is to perform dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system version 5.1. The Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening filter‐free photon modes and electron energies was used in this study. The dosimetric output of the new Agility head combined with the FFF photon modes warranted this investigation into the dosimetric accuracy prior to clinical usage. A model of the VersaHD linac was created in Monaco TPS by Elekta using commissioned beam data including percent depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors. A variety of 3D conformal fields were created in Monaco TPS on a combined Plastic water/Styrofoam phantom and validated against measurements with a calibrated ion chamber. Some of the parameters varied including source to surface distance, field size, wedges, gantry angle, and depth for all photon and electron energies. In addition, a series of step and shoot IMRT, VMAT test plans, and patient plans on various anatomical sites were verified against measurements on a Delta4 diode array. The agreement in point dose measurements was within 2% for all photon and electron energies in the homogeneous phantom and within 3% for photon energies in the heterogeneous phantom. The mean ± SD gamma passing rates of IMRT test fields yielded 93.8 ± 4.7% based on 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance‐to‐agreement criteria. Eight previously treated IMRT patient plans were replanned in Monaco TPS and five measurements on each yielded an average gamma passing rate of 95% with 6.7% confidence limit based on 3%, 3 mm gamma criteria. This investigation on dosimetric validation ensures accuracy of modeling VersaHD linac in Monaco TPS thereby improving patient safety.

Purpose Total Skin Electron Irradiation (TSEI) is a complex technique which usually involves the use of large electron fields and the dual‐field approach. In this situation, many electrons scattered from the treatment room floor are produced. However, no investigations of the effect of scattered electrons in TSEI treatments have been reported. The purpose of this work was to study the contribution of floor scattered electrons to skin dose during TSEI treatment using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods All MC simulations were performed with the EGSnrc code. Influence of beam energy, dual‐field angle, and floor material on the contribution of floor scatter was investigated. Spectrum of the scattered electrons was calculated. Measurements of dose profile were performed in order to verify MC calculations. Results Floor scatter dependency on the floor material was observed (at 20 cm from the floor, scatter contribution was about 21%, 18%, 15%, and 12% for iron, concrete, PVC, and water, respectively). Although total dose profiles exhibited slight variation as functions of beam energy and dual‐field angle, no dependence of the floor scatter contribution on the beam energy or dual‐field angle was found. The spectrum of the scattered electrons was almost uniform between a few hundred KeV to 4 MeV, and then decreased linearly to 6 MeV. Conclusions For the TSEI technique, dose contribution due to the electrons scattered from the room floor may be clinically significant and should be taken into account during design and commissioning phases. MC calculations can be used for this task.

The loss of treatment plan quality after segmentation following fluence optimization is a problem in IMRT. In a previous publication we showed that re-optimization helps to re-establish part of the plan quality. Recently the so-called direct aperture optimization method has been introduced to successfully overcome that difficulty. The aim of the present paper is to present in detail the integration of the inverse kernel method into direct aperture optimization. It can be shown that this integration leads to a system with high performance with regard to time, while Monte Carlo precision is maintained. The integrated simulated annealing optimization algorithm allows easy adaptation to any multi-leaf collimator and it is open to any complex objective function. Investigations of simulated annealing control parameters are performed to improve the performance. The system denoted by direct Monte Carlo optimization (DMCO) is demonstrated on the Carpet phantom and a clinical prostate case as well. Results are compared to inverse kernel optimizations, showing a remarkable time reduction and simultaneously an improvement in plan quality for the Carpet phantom.