Verification of dose calculations with a clinical treatment planning system based on a point kernel dose engine

Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements

PURPOSE

Transit dosimetry is a safety tool based on the transit images acquired during treatment. Forward-projection transit dosimetry software, as PerFRACTION, compares the transit images acquired with an expected image calculated from the DICOM plan, the CT, and the structure set. This work aims to validate PerFRACTION expected transit dose using PRIMO Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements, and propose a methodology based on MPPG5a report.

METHODS

The validation process was divided into three groups of tests according to MPPG5a: basic dose validation, IMRT dose validation, and heterogeneity correction validation. For the basic dose validation, the fields used were the nine fields needed to calibrate PerFRACTION and three jaws-defined. For the IMRT dose validation, seven sweeping gaps fields, the MLC transmission and 29 IMRT fields from 10 breast treatment plans were measured. For the heterogeneity validation, the transit dose of these fields was studied using three phantoms: 10 , 30 , and a 3 cm cork slab placed between 10 cm of solid water. The PerFRACTION expected doses were compared with PRIMO Monte Carlo simulation results and ionization chamber measurements.

RESULTS

Using the 10 cm solid water phantom, for the basic validation fields, the root mean square (RMS) of the difference between PerFRACTION and PRIMO simulations was 0.6%. In the IMRT fields, the RMS of the difference was 1.2%. When comparing respect ionization chamber measurements, the RMS of the difference was 1.0% both for the basic and the IMRT validation. The average passing rate with a γ(2%/2 mm, TH = 20%) criterion between PRIMO dose distribution and PerFRACTION expected dose was 96.0% ± 5.8%.

CONCLUSION

We validated PerFRACTION calculated transit dose with PRIMO Monte Carlo and ionization chamber measurements adapting the methodology of the MMPG5a report. The methodology presented can be applied to validate other forward-projection transit dosimetry software.

Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare and to validate different dose calculation algorithms for the use in radiation therapy of small lung lesions and to optimize the treatment planning using accurate dose calculation algorithms.

METHODS

A 9-field conformal treatment plan was generated on an inhomogeneous phantom with lung mimics and a soft tissue equivalent insert, mimicking a lung tumor. The dose distribution was calculated with the Pencil Beam and Collapsed Cone algorithms implemented in Masterplan (Nucletron) and the Monte Carlo system XVMC and validated using Gafchromic EBT films. Differences in dose distribution were evaluated. The plans were then optimized by adding segments to the outer shell of the target in order to increase the dose near the interface to the lung.

RESULTS

The Pencil Beam algorithm overestimated the dose by up to 15% compared to the measurements. Collapsed Cone and Monte Carlo predicted the dose more accurately with a maximum difference of -8% and -3% respectively compared to the film. Plan optimization by adding small segments to the peripheral parts of the target, creating a 2-step fluence modulation, allowed to increase target coverage and homogeneity as compared to the uncorrected 9 field plan.

CONCLUSION

The use of forward 2-step fluence modulation in radiotherapy of small lung lesions allows the improvement of tumor coverage and dose homogeneity as compared to non-modulated treatment plans and may thus help to increase the local tumor control probability. While the Collapsed Cone algorithm is closer to measurements than the Pencil Beam algorithm, both algorithms are limited at tissue/lung interfaces, leaving Monte-Carlo the most accurate algorithm for dose prediction.

Comparison of monitor unit calculations performed with a 3D computerized planning system and independent "hand" calculations: results of three years clinical experience

A comparison of the monitor unit calculations of a commercial 3D computerized treatment planning system (TPS) with "hand" calculations from lookup tables was made for a large number of clinical cases (greater than 13 500 treatment fields). Differences were analyzed by treatment site for prostate, rectum, cranium, and breast. The 3D TPS monitor unit calculation was systematically higher than the "hand" calculation by an amount that depended on the complexity of the treatment geometry. For simple geometries the mean difference was 1% and was as high as 3% for more complicated geometries. The higher value was attributed to an accumulation of differences introduced by multiple factors in the monitor unit calculation. Careful attention to factors such as patient contour could reduce the mean difference. "Hand" calculations were shown to be an accurate and useful tool for verification of TPS monitor unit calculations.