skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-365: Clinical Commissioning of the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx to Deliver VMAT, SRS and SBRT Treatments

Abstract

Purpose: To commission the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx machine. Methods: The commissioning of Monte-Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone (CC) and electron Monte-Carlo (eMC) beam models was performed through a series of measurements and calculations in medium and in water. In medium measurements relied Octavius 4D QA system with the 1000 SRS detector array for field sizes less than 4 cm × 4 cm and the 1500 detector array for larger field sizes. Heterogeneity corrections were validated using a custom built phantom. Prior to clinical implementation, an end to end testing of a Prostate and H&N VMAT plans was performed. Results: Using a 0.5% uncertainty and 2 mm grid sizes, Tables I and II summarize the MC validation at 6 MV and 18 MV in both medium and water. Tables III and IV show similar comparisons for CC. Using the custom heterogeneity phantom setup of Figure 1 and IGRT guidance summarized in Figure 2, Table V lists the percent pass rate for a 2%, 2 mm gamma criteria at 6 and 18 MV for both MC and CC. The relationship between MC calculations settings of uncertainty and grid size and the gamma passing rate for a prostate andmore » H&N case is shown in Table VI. Table VII lists the results of the eMC calculations compared to measured data for clinically available applicators and Table VIII for small field cutouts. Conclusion: MU calculations using MC are highly sensitive to uncertainty and grid size settings. The difference can be of the order of several per cents. MC is superior to CC for small fields and when using heterogeneity corrections, regardless of field size, making it more suitable for SRS, SBRT and VMAT deliveries. eMC showed good agreement with measurements down to 2 cm − 2 cm field size.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. The Global Medical Physics Institute, Irvine, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648963
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
Medical Physics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0094-2405
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMMISSIONING; MONACO; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLANNING; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Adnani, N. SU-F-T-365: Clinical Commissioning of the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx to Deliver VMAT, SRS and SBRT Treatments. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956550.
Adnani, N. SU-F-T-365: Clinical Commissioning of the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx to Deliver VMAT, SRS and SBRT Treatments. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956550.
Adnani, N. Wed . "SU-F-T-365: Clinical Commissioning of the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx to Deliver VMAT, SRS and SBRT Treatments". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956550.
@article{osti_22648963,
title = {SU-F-T-365: Clinical Commissioning of the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx to Deliver VMAT, SRS and SBRT Treatments},
author = {Adnani, N},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To commission the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx machine. Methods: The commissioning of Monte-Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone (CC) and electron Monte-Carlo (eMC) beam models was performed through a series of measurements and calculations in medium and in water. In medium measurements relied Octavius 4D QA system with the 1000 SRS detector array for field sizes less than 4 cm × 4 cm and the 1500 detector array for larger field sizes. Heterogeneity corrections were validated using a custom built phantom. Prior to clinical implementation, an end to end testing of a Prostate and H&N VMAT plans was performed. Results: Using a 0.5% uncertainty and 2 mm grid sizes, Tables I and II summarize the MC validation at 6 MV and 18 MV in both medium and water. Tables III and IV show similar comparisons for CC. Using the custom heterogeneity phantom setup of Figure 1 and IGRT guidance summarized in Figure 2, Table V lists the percent pass rate for a 2%, 2 mm gamma criteria at 6 and 18 MV for both MC and CC. The relationship between MC calculations settings of uncertainty and grid size and the gamma passing rate for a prostate and H&N case is shown in Table VI. Table VII lists the results of the eMC calculations compared to measured data for clinically available applicators and Table VIII for small field cutouts. Conclusion: MU calculations using MC are highly sensitive to uncertainty and grid size settings. The difference can be of the order of several per cents. MC is superior to CC for small fields and when using heterogeneity corrections, regardless of field size, making it more suitable for SRS, SBRT and VMAT deliveries. eMC showed good agreement with measurements down to 2 cm − 2 cm field size.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956550},
journal = {Medical Physics},
issn = {0094-2405},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {2016},
month = {6}
}