The importance of accurate linear accelerator head modelling for IMRT Monte Carlo calculations

被引:16
|
作者
Reynaert, N
Coghe, M
De Smedt, B
Paelinck, L
Vanderstraeten, B
De Gersem, W
Van Duyse, B
De Wagter, C
De Neve, W
Thierens, H
机构
[1] State Univ Ghent, Dept Med Phys, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[2] State Univ Ghent Hosp, Div Radiotherapy, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
来源
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY | 2005年 / 50卷 / 05期
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/008
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Two Monte Carlo dose engines for radiotherapy treatment planning, namely a beta release of Peregrine and MCDE (Monte Carlo dose engine), were compared with Helax-TMS (collapsed cone superposition convolution) for a head and neck patient for the Elekta SLi plus linear accelerator. Deviations between the beta release of Peregrine and MCDE up to 10% were obtained in the dose volume histogram of the optical chiasm. It was illustrated that the differences are not caused by the particle transport in the patient, but by the modelling of the Elekta SLi plus accelerator head and more specifically the multileaf collimator (MLC). In MCDE two MLC modules (MLCQ and MLCE) were introduced to study the influence of the tongue-and-groove geometry, leaf bank tilt and leakage on the actual dose volume histograms. Differences in integral dose in the optical chiasm up to 3% between the two modules have been obtained. For single small offset beams though the FWHM of lateral profiles obtained with MLCE can differ by more than 1.5 mm from profiles obtained with MLCQ. Therefore, and because the recent version of MLCE is as fast as MLCQ, we advise to use MLCE for modelling the Elekta MLC. Nevertheless there still remains a large difference (up to 10%) between Peregrine and MCDE. By studying small offset beams we have shown that the profiles obtained with Peregrine are shifted, too wide and too flat compared with MCDE and phantom measurements. The overestimated integral doses for small beam segments explain the deviations observed in the dose volume histograms. The Helax-TMS results are in better agreement with MCDE, although deviations exceeding 5% have been observed in the optical chiasm. Monte Carlo dose deviations of more than 10% as found with Peregrine are unacceptable as an influence on the clinical outcome is possible and as the purpose of Monte Carlo treatment planning is to obtain an accuracy of 2%. We would like to emphasize that only the Elekta MLC has been tested in this work, so it is certainly possible that alpha releases of Peregrine provide more accurate results for other accelerators.
引用
收藏
页码:831 / 846
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Concept of a clinical linear accelerator optimized for IMRT with Monte Carlo simulation
    Yasunaga, M.
    Yagi, M.
    Mukumoto, N.
    Tsujii, K.
    Uehara, K.
    Saito, S.
    Numasaki, H.
    Teshima, T.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 72 (01): : S670 - S670
  • [2] Monte Carlo investigation of the effects of an IMRT compensator on linear accelerator beam output
    Niven, D.
    Lewis, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (06) : 2559 - 2559
  • [3] Fast Monte Carlo calculation of linear accelerator head scatter factors
    MacPherson, M
    Badeen, A
    Wilkins, D
    Gerig, L
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (06) : 1203 - 1203
  • [4] EURADOS intercomparison exercise on Monte Carlo modelling of a medical linear accelerator
    Caccia, Barbara
    Le Roy, Maiwenn
    Blideanu, Valentin
    Andenna, Claudio
    Arun, Chairmadurai
    Czarnecki, Damian
    El Bardouni, Tarek
    Gschwind, Regine
    Huot, Nicolas
    Martin, Eric
    Zink, Klemens
    Zoubair, Mariam
    Price, Robert
    de Carlan, Loic
    [J]. ANNALI DELL ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITA, 2017, 53 (04): : 314 - 321
  • [5] Fast online Monte Carlo-based IMRT planning for the MRI linear accelerator
    Bol, G. H.
    Hissoiny, S.
    Lagendijk, J. J. W.
    Raaymakers, B. W.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2012, 57 (05): : 1375 - 1385
  • [6] Monte Carlo calculations of electron beam output factors for a medical linear accelerator
    Kapur, A
    Ma, CM
    Mok, EC
    Findley, DO
    Boyer, AL
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1998, 43 (12): : 3479 - 3494
  • [7] Monte Carlo dose calculations for dynamic IMRT treatments
    Keall, PJ
    Siebers, JV
    Arnfield, M
    Kim, JO
    Mohan, R
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2001, 46 (04): : 929 - 941
  • [8] Development of a Monte Carlo model for dose calculations in IMRT
    Aaronson, R
    DeMarco, J
    Chetty, I
    Solberg, T
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (06) : 1330 - 1330
  • [9] Monte Carlo simulation of a clinical linear accelerator
    Lin, SY
    Chu, TC
    Lin, JP
    [J]. APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES, 2001, 55 (06) : 759 - 765
  • [10] Monte Carlo Modeling of the Agility MLC for IMRT and VMAT Calculations
    Ohira, Shingo
    Takegawa, Hideki
    Miyazaki, Masayoshi
    Koizumi, Masahiko
    Teshima, Teruki
    [J]. IN VIVO, 2020, 34 (05): : 2371 - 2380