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

Title: SU-F-T-373: Monte Carlo Versus Pencil Beam Dose Calculation for Spine SBRT Treatments Using HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm compared to Pencil Beam (PB) on Spine SBRT with HybridARC (HA) and sliding windows IMRT (dMLC) treatment modality. Methods: A 6MV beam (1000MU/min) produced by a Novalis TX (BrainLAB-Varian) equipped with HDMLC was used. HA uses 1 arc plus 8 IMRT beams (arc weight between 60–40%) and dIMRT 15 beams. Plans were calculated using iPlan v.4.5.3 (BrainLAB) and the treatment dose prescription was 27Gy in 3 fractions. Dose calculation was done by PB (4mm spatial resolution) with heterogeneity correction and MC dose to water (4mm spatial resolution and 4% mean variance). PTV and spinal cord dose comparison were done. Study was done on 12 patients. IROC Spine Phantom was used to validate HA and quantify dose variation using PB and MC algorithm. Results: The difference between PB and MC for PTV D98%, D95%, Dmean, D2% were 2.6% [−5.1, 6.8], 0.1% [−4.2, 5.4], 0.9% [−1.5, 3.8] and 2.4% [−0.5, 8.3]. The difference between PB and MC for spinal cord Dmax, D1.2cc and D0.35cc were 5.3% [−6.4, 18.4], 9% [−7.0, 17.0] and 7.6% [−0.6, 14.8] respectively. IROC spine phantom shows PTV TLD dosemore » variation of 0.98% for PB and 1.01% for MC. Axial and sagittal film plane gamma index (5%-3mm) was 95% and 97% for PB and 95% and 99% for MC. Conclusion: PB slightly underestimates the dose for the PTV. For the spinal cord PB underestimates the dose and dose differences could be as high as 18% which could have unexpected clinical impact. CI shows no variation between PB and MC for both treatment modalities Treatment modalities have no impact with the dose calculation algorithms used. Following the IROC pass-fail criteria, treatment acceptance requirement was fulfilled for PB and MC.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. Instituto de Radioterapia - Fundacion Marie Curie, Cordoba (Argentina)
  2. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648971
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALGORITHMS; BEAMS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; SPINAL CORD; VARIATIONS; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Venencia, C, Pino, M, Caussa, L, Garrigo, E, and Molineu, A. SU-F-T-373: Monte Carlo Versus Pencil Beam Dose Calculation for Spine SBRT Treatments Using HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956558.
Venencia, C, Pino, M, Caussa, L, Garrigo, E, & Molineu, A. SU-F-T-373: Monte Carlo Versus Pencil Beam Dose Calculation for Spine SBRT Treatments Using HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956558.
Venencia, C, Pino, M, Caussa, L, Garrigo, E, and Molineu, A. Wed . "SU-F-T-373: Monte Carlo Versus Pencil Beam Dose Calculation for Spine SBRT Treatments Using HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956558.
@article{osti_22648971,
title = {SU-F-T-373: Monte Carlo Versus Pencil Beam Dose Calculation for Spine SBRT Treatments Using HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT},
author = {Venencia, C and Pino, M and Caussa, L and Garrigo, E and Molineu, A},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm compared to Pencil Beam (PB) on Spine SBRT with HybridARC (HA) and sliding windows IMRT (dMLC) treatment modality. Methods: A 6MV beam (1000MU/min) produced by a Novalis TX (BrainLAB-Varian) equipped with HDMLC was used. HA uses 1 arc plus 8 IMRT beams (arc weight between 60–40%) and dIMRT 15 beams. Plans were calculated using iPlan v.4.5.3 (BrainLAB) and the treatment dose prescription was 27Gy in 3 fractions. Dose calculation was done by PB (4mm spatial resolution) with heterogeneity correction and MC dose to water (4mm spatial resolution and 4% mean variance). PTV and spinal cord dose comparison were done. Study was done on 12 patients. IROC Spine Phantom was used to validate HA and quantify dose variation using PB and MC algorithm. Results: The difference between PB and MC for PTV D98%, D95%, Dmean, D2% were 2.6% [−5.1, 6.8], 0.1% [−4.2, 5.4], 0.9% [−1.5, 3.8] and 2.4% [−0.5, 8.3]. The difference between PB and MC for spinal cord Dmax, D1.2cc and D0.35cc were 5.3% [−6.4, 18.4], 9% [−7.0, 17.0] and 7.6% [−0.6, 14.8] respectively. IROC spine phantom shows PTV TLD dose variation of 0.98% for PB and 1.01% for MC. Axial and sagittal film plane gamma index (5%-3mm) was 95% and 97% for PB and 95% and 99% for MC. Conclusion: PB slightly underestimates the dose for the PTV. For the spinal cord PB underestimates the dose and dose differences could be as high as 18% which could have unexpected clinical impact. CI shows no variation between PB and MC for both treatment modalities Treatment modalities have no impact with the dose calculation algorithms used. Following the IROC pass-fail criteria, treatment acceptance requirement was fulfilled for PB and MC.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956558},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}