SU-F-T-364: Monte Carlo-Dose Verification of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans Using AAPM TG-119 Test Patterns

Journal Article · Wed Jun 15 04:00:00 EDT 2016 · Medical Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4956549· OSTI ID:22648962

Onizuka, R ^[1]; Araki, F; Ohno, T ^[2]; Nakaguchi, Y ^[3]

---

1. Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kumamoto University (Japan)
2. Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University (Japan)
3. Kumamoto University Hospital (Japan)

Purpose: To investigate the Monte Carlo (MC)-based dose verification for VMAT plans by a treatment planning system (TPS). Methods: The AAPM TG-119 test structure set was used for VMAT plans by the Pinnacle3 (convolution/superposition), using a Synergy radiation head of a 6 MV beam with the Agility MLC. The Synergy was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code, and VMAT dose distributions were calculated with the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code by the same irradiation conditions as TPS. VMAT dose distributions of TPS and MC were compared with those of EBT3 film, by 2-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 30% of prescribed doses. VMAT dose distributions between TPS and MC were also compared by DVHs and 3-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 10%, and 3-D passing rates for PTVs and OARs were analyzed. Results: TPS dose distributions differed from those of film, especially for Head & neck. The dose difference between TPS and film results from calculation accuracy for complex motion of MLCs like tongue and groove effect. In contrast, MC dose distributions were in good agreement with those of film. This is because MC can model fully the MLC configuration and accurately reproduce the MLC motion between control points in VMAT plans. D95 of PTV for Prostate, Head & neck, C-shaped, and Multi Target was 97.2%, 98.1%, 101.6%, and 99.7% for TPS and 95.7%, 96.0%, 100.6%, and 99.1% for MC, respectively. Similarly, 3-D gamma passing rates of each PTV for TPS vs. MC were 100%, 89.5%, 99.7%, and 100%, respectively. 3-D passing rates of TPS reduced for complex VMAT fields like Head & neck because MLCs are not modeled completely for TPS. Conclusion: MC-calculated VMAT dose distributions is useful for the 3-D dose verification of VMAT plans by TPS.

• OSTI ID: 22648962
• Journal Information: Medical Physics, Journal Name: Medical Physics Journal Issue: 6 Vol. 43; ISSN 0094-2405; ISSN MPHYA6
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY
HEAD
MONTE CARLO METHOD
NECK
PLANNING
RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS
RADIOTHERAPY
RATS
SIMULATION
VERIFICATION