Accuracy of the small field dosimetry using the monte carlo and sequential dose calculation algorithms of Multiplan treatment planning system within and beyond heterogeneous media for Cyberknife M6 unit

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
E. Serin ◽  
G. Codel ◽  
M.S. Cebe ◽  
H. Mabhouti ◽  
P. Pacaci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Heterogeneous Media ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Small Field ◽  
Small Field Dosimetry ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

Comparison of CCC and ETAR dose calculation algorithms in pituitary adenoma radiation treatment planning; Monte Carlo evaluation

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Tanha ◽  
S. R. Mahdavi ◽  
G. Geraily
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Pituitary Adenoma ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

AbstractAimsTo verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.Materials and methodsAfter validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar field technique. This technique uses 30 degree physical wedge and 18 MV photon beams.ResultsDose distribution findings showed significant difference between ETAR and CCC of delivered dose in pituitary irradiation. The differences between MC and dose calculation algorithms were 6.40 ± 3.44% for CCC and 10.36 ± 4.37% for ETAR. None of the algorithms could predict actual dose in air cavity areas in comparison to the MC method.ConclusionsDifference between calculation and true dose value affects radiation treatment outcome and normal tissue complication probability. It is of prime concern to select appropriate treatment planning system according to our clinical situation. It is further emphasised that MC can be the method of choice for clinical dose calculation algorithms verification.

scholarly journals Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Djeni Smilovic Radojcic ◽  
Bozidar Casar ◽  
David Rajlic ◽  
Manda Svabic Kolacio ◽  
Ignasi Mendez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Absorbed Dose ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Absorbed Doses ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

AbstractIntroductionAdvanced, Monte Carlo (MC) based dose calculation algorithms, determine absorbed dose as dose to medium-in-medium (Dm,m) or dose to water-in-medium (Dw,m). Some earlier studies identified the differences in the absorbed doses related to the calculation mode, especially in the bone density equivalent (BDE) media. Since the calculation algorithms built in the treatment planning systems (TPS) should be dosimetrically verified before their use, we analyzed dose differences between two calculation modes for the Elekta Monaco TPS. We compared them with experimentally determined values, aiming to define a supplement to the existing TPS verification methodology.Materials and methodsIn our study, we used a 6 MV photon beam from a linear accelerator. To evaluate the accuracy of the TPS calculation approaches, measurements with a Farmer type chamber in a semi-anthropomorphic phantom were compared to those obtained by two calculation options. The comparison was made for three parts of the phantom having different densities, with a focus on the BDE part.ResultsMeasured and calculated doses were in agreement for water and lung equivalent density materials, regardless of the calculation mode. However, in the BDE part of the phantom, mean dose differences between the calculation options ranged from 5.7 to 8.3%, depending on the method used. In the BDE part of the phantom, neither of the two calculation options were consistent with experimentally determined absorbed doses.ConclusionsBased on our findings, we proposed a supplement to the current methodology for the verification of commercial MC based TPS by performing additional measurements in BDE material.

scholarly journals Dosimetric Accuracy Comparison between ACUROSE XB, AAA and PBC Dose Calculation Algorithms in EclipseTM TPS Using a Heterogeneous Phantom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arezoo Rooshenas ◽  
Somayeh Gholami ◽  
Mehdi Salehi Barough ◽  
Ehsan Mohammadi
Keyword(s):  
Heterogeneous Media ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Accuracy Comparison ◽  
Dosimetric Accuracy ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Calculated Dose ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Heterogeneous Tissues

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of different algorithms in EclipseTM Treatment Planning System (TPS) using a heterogeneous phantom. Materials and Methods: The method is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's TEC-DOC 1583 report. The chest phantom of CIRS, PTW30010 ionization chamber and an electrometer (PTW, Freiburg) were used for the measurements. Three ACUROSE XB (AXB), Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) dose calculation algorithms available in Eclipse TM TPS were considered in this study. Results: Based on the measurements, the maximum differences between calculated dose by TPS and measured dose in TEC-DOC 1583 tests were 2.5%, 8.6% and 16.1% for the AXB, AAA and PBC algorithms in heterogeneous media, respectively. Conclusion: The Acuros XB algorithm has superior accuracy to predict the dose distribution in the heterogeneous tissues such as lung compared to AAA and PBC algorithms

SU-E-T-626: Accuracy of Dose Calculation Algorithms in MultiPlan Treatment Planning System in Presence of Heterogeneities

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part21) ◽  
pp. 372-372
Author(s):  
C Moignier ◽  
C Huet ◽  
V Barraux ◽  
C Loiseau ◽  
K Sebe-Mercier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document