A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media

GATE Monte Carlo approach to heterogeneity dose distribution in small fields used in radiation therapy

The Accurate dosage prediction in Radiation Therapy is challenging, prompting a need for precision beyond conventional clinical Treatment Planning Systems (TPS). Monte Carlo-based methods are sought for their superior accuracy. The aim of this study is to compare dose distributions between the ACUROS algorithm and the GATE platform in various tissue densities and field sizes, focusing on smaller fields. This study was initiated with a homogeneous validation of the TrueBeam STX system, using measurements obtained from the Centre Hospitalier Interregional Edith Cavell (CHIREC) in Brussels. The validation compared dosimetric functions (Percentage Depth Dose (PDD), Dose profile (DP) and Collimator scatter fraction (CSF)) employing the GAMMA index with a 2% / 2 mm criterion tolerance. Following this, heterogeneous studies examined dose distributions between the ACUROS algorithm and the GATE platform in various tissue densities and field sizes, with a specific focus on smaller fields. Simulations were conducted using both platforms on chest phantoms with heterogeneous slabs representing bone, lung, and heart, each housing a central tumor. The impact of electronic equilibrium on tumors for different small field sizes was evaluated. Results showed a remarkable 99% agreement between measurements and GATE calculations in the homogeneous validation of the TrueBeam STX system. However, in heterogeneous studies, ACUROS consistently overestimated lung doses by up to 8% compared to GATE simulation, especially evident with a flattening filter and smaller beam sizes at density interfaces. This highlights significant dose estimation discrepancies between ACUROS and GATE, emphasizing the need for precise calculations. The findings support exploring Monte Carlo-based methods for enhanced accuracy in Radiation Therapy treatment planning.

Comparison of four commercial dose calculation algorithms in different evaluation tests

BACKGROUND

Accurate and fast dose calculation is crucial in modern radiation therapy. Four dose calculation algorithms (AAA, AXB, CCC, and MC) are available in Varian Eclipse and RaySearch Laboratories RayStation Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate and compare dosimetric accuracy of the four dose calculation algorithms applying to homogeneous and heterogeneous media, VMAT plans (based on AAPM TG-119 test cases), and the surface and buildup regions.

METHODS

The four algorithms are assessed in homogeneous (IAEA-TECDOCE 1540) and heterogeneous (IAEA-TECDOC 1583) media. Dosimetric evaluation accuracy for VMAT plans is then analyzed, along with the evaluation of the accuracy of algorithms applying to the surface and buildup regions.

RESULTS

Tests conducted in homogeneous media revealed that all algorithms exhibit dose deviations within 5% for various conditions, with pass rates exceeding 95% based on recommended tolerances. Additionally, the tests conducted in heterogeneous media demonstrate high pass rates for all algorithms, with a 100% pass rate observed for 6 MV and mostly 100% pass rate for 15 MV, except for CCC, which achieves a pass rate of 94%. The results of gamma index pass rate (GIPR) for dose calculation algorithms in IMRT fields show that GIPR (3% /3 mm) for all four algorithms in all evaluated tests based on TG119, are greater than 97%. The results of the algorithm testing for the accuracy of superficial dose reveal variations in dose differences, ranging from -11.9% to 7.03% for 15 MV and -9.5% to 3.3% for 6 MV, respectively. It is noteworthy that the AXB and MC algorithms demonstrate relatively lower discrepancies compared to the other algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that generally, two dose calculation algorithms (AXB and MC) that calculate dose in medium have better accuracy than other two dose calculation algorithms (CCC and AAA) that calculate dose to water.

Monte-Carlo techniques for radiotherapy applications II: equipment and source modelling, dose calculations and radiobiology

Introduction:

This is the second of two papers giving an overview of the use of Monte-Carlo techniques for radiotherapy applications.

Methods:

The first paper gave an introduction and introduced some of the codes that are available to the user wishing to model the different aspects of radiotherapy treatment. It also aims to serve as a useful companion to a curated collection of papers on Monte-Carlo that have been published in this journal.

Results and Conclusions:

This paper focuses on the application of Monte-Carlo to specific problems in radiotherapy. These include radiotherapy and imaging beam production, brachytherapy, phantom and patient dosimetry, detector modelling and track structure calculations for micro-dosimetry, nano-dosimetry and radiobiology.

Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PURPOSE

This study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.

METHODS

Four cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.

RESULTS

The comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.