SU-FF-T-168: The Evaluation of Several Commercial IMRT Treatment Planning Systems Heterogeneity Dose Calculation Algorithms Using An Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (6Part9) ◽  
pp. 1988-1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Davidson ◽  
D Followill ◽  
G Ibbott ◽  
K Prado
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

scholarly journals Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-190
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abazarfard ◽  
Payam Azadeh ◽  
Ahmad Mostaar
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Treatment Planning Systems ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Small Fields ◽  
Mc Simulation ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.

On the experimental validation of model-based dose calculation algorithms for192Ir HDR brachytherapy treatment planning

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 4160-4182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleftherios P Pappas ◽  
Emmanouil Zoros ◽  
Argyris Moutsatsos ◽  
Vasiliki Peppa ◽  
Kyveli Zourari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Experimental Validation ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms

scholarly journals The influence of beam model differences in the comparison of dose calculation algorithms for lung cancer treatment planning

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 801-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indrin J Chetty ◽  
Mihaela Rosu ◽  
Daniel L McShan ◽  
Benedick A Fraass ◽  
Randall K Ten Haken
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Beam Model ◽  
Lung Cancer Treatment ◽  
Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document