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

Title: SU-F-T-658: Out-Of-Field Dose Comparison for TrueBeam Low Energy Beams for Extended Distances: Measurement Vs Monte Carlo Simulation

Abstract

Purpose: Patient dose far from the treatment field is comprised of scatter from within the patient, and treatment head leakage. We quantify the treatment head leakage for TrueBeam linear accelerator for 6X and 6X-FFF beams by comparing measurements to Monte Carlo simulations for a variety of jaw sizes and collimator rotations. This work is conceptually similar to that of Kry et al. (Medical Physics 2006; 33: 4405), who considered a Clinac linear accelerator. Methods: Measurements were made using an EXRADIN A101 ion chamber positioned in the patient plane, at distances up to 100 cm from isocenter. Simulations were done using VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head, and an in-house (U. Virginia) GEANT4-based code. In-house code modelled an ion chamber with build-up, based on a CT scan of the chamber. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding, and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code. Results: Initial comparisons between measurements and simulation showed an excess of dose in the in-plane direction, away from the gantry, in the simulations. This was traced tomore » an incomplete model of the shielding—specifically, the component holding the primary collimator was smaller in the model than in the TrueBeam. Modifications were made to VirtuaLinac to more closely match the engineering drawings. In the in-plane direction, the lowest out of field dose was away from gantry (negative abscissa values) at around 60 cm from isocenter, for fields smaller than 10×10 cm2. Out of field dose decreased with decreasing jaw size. Flattening-filter free beam produced out-of-field doses as low as 65% of those with flattened beam. Conclusion: Doses determined from simulation and measurement were in close agreement. Funding support from the Jefferson Trust Foundation.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3];  [4]
  1. University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, VA (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (United States)
  4. Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649213
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; BEAMS; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; HEAD; IMAGE PROCESSING; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PATIENTS; PHASE SPACE; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Wijesooriya, K, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, Liyanage, N, Kaluarachchi, M, and Sawkey, D. SU-F-T-658: Out-Of-Field Dose Comparison for TrueBeam Low Energy Beams for Extended Distances: Measurement Vs Monte Carlo Simulation. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956844.
Wijesooriya, K, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, Liyanage, N, Kaluarachchi, M, & Sawkey, D. SU-F-T-658: Out-Of-Field Dose Comparison for TrueBeam Low Energy Beams for Extended Distances: Measurement Vs Monte Carlo Simulation. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956844.
Wijesooriya, K, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, Liyanage, N, Kaluarachchi, M, and Sawkey, D. Wed . "SU-F-T-658: Out-Of-Field Dose Comparison for TrueBeam Low Energy Beams for Extended Distances: Measurement Vs Monte Carlo Simulation". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956844.
@article{osti_22649213,
title = {SU-F-T-658: Out-Of-Field Dose Comparison for TrueBeam Low Energy Beams for Extended Distances: Measurement Vs Monte Carlo Simulation},
author = {Wijesooriya, K and University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA and Liyanage, N and Kaluarachchi, M and Sawkey, D},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Patient dose far from the treatment field is comprised of scatter from within the patient, and treatment head leakage. We quantify the treatment head leakage for TrueBeam linear accelerator for 6X and 6X-FFF beams by comparing measurements to Monte Carlo simulations for a variety of jaw sizes and collimator rotations. This work is conceptually similar to that of Kry et al. (Medical Physics 2006; 33: 4405), who considered a Clinac linear accelerator. Methods: Measurements were made using an EXRADIN A101 ion chamber positioned in the patient plane, at distances up to 100 cm from isocenter. Simulations were done using VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head, and an in-house (U. Virginia) GEANT4-based code. In-house code modelled an ion chamber with build-up, based on a CT scan of the chamber. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding, and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code. Results: Initial comparisons between measurements and simulation showed an excess of dose in the in-plane direction, away from the gantry, in the simulations. This was traced to an incomplete model of the shielding—specifically, the component holding the primary collimator was smaller in the model than in the TrueBeam. Modifications were made to VirtuaLinac to more closely match the engineering drawings. In the in-plane direction, the lowest out of field dose was away from gantry (negative abscissa values) at around 60 cm from isocenter, for fields smaller than 10×10 cm2. Out of field dose decreased with decreasing jaw size. Flattening-filter free beam produced out-of-field doses as low as 65% of those with flattened beam. Conclusion: Doses determined from simulation and measurement were in close agreement. Funding support from the Jefferson Trust Foundation.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956844},
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}
}
  • Purpose: Dose calculation accuracy for the out-of-field dose is important for predicting the dose to the organs-at-risk when they are located outside primary beams. The investigations on evaluating the calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPS) on out-of-field dose in existing publications have focused on low energy (6MV) photon. This study evaluates out-of-field dose calculation accuracy of AAA algorithm for 15MV high energy photon beams. Methods: We used the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) codes to evaluate the AAA algorithm in Varian Eclipse TPS (v.11). The incident beams start with validated Varian phase-space sources for a TrueBeam linac equipped with Millenniummore » 120 MLC. Dose comparisons between using AAA and MC for CT based realistic patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques for prostate and lung were performed and uncertainties of organ dose predicted by AAA at out-of-field location were evaluated. Results: The results show that AAA calculations under-estimate doses at the dose level of 1% (or less) of prescribed dose for CT based patient treatment plans using VMAT techniques. In regions where dose is only 1% of prescribed dose, although AAA under-estimates the out-of-field dose by 30% relative to the local dose, it is only about 0.3% of prescribed dose. For example, the uncertainties of calculated organ dose to liver or kidney that is located out-of-field is <0.3% of prescribed dose. Conclusion: For 15MV high energy photon beams, very good agreements (<1%) in calculating dose distributions were obtained between AAA and MC. The uncertainty of out-of-field dose calculations predicted by the AAA algorithm for realistic patient VMAT plans is <0.3% of prescribed dose in regions where the dose relative to the prescribed dose is <1%, although the uncertainties can be much larger relative to local doses. For organs-at-risk located at out-of-field, the error of dose predicted by Eclipse using AAA is negligible. This work was conducted in part using the resources of Varian research grant VUMC40590-R.« less
  • Purpose: Output dependence on field size for uniform scanning beams, and the accuracy of treatment planning system (TPS) calculation are not well studied. The purpose of this work is to investigate the dependence of output on field size for uniform scanning beams and compare it among TPS calculation, measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Methods: Field size dependence was studied using various field sizes between 2.5 cm diameter to 10 cm diameter. The field size factor was studied for a number of proton range and modulation combinations based on output at the center of spread out Bragg peak normalized to amore » 10 cm diameter field. Three methods were used and compared in this study: 1) TPS calculation, 2) ionization chamber measurement, and 3) Monte Carlos simulation. The XiO TPS (Electa, St. Louis) was used to calculate the output factor using a pencil beam algorithm; a pinpoint ionization chamber was used for measurements; and the Fluka code was used for Monte Carlo simulations. Results: The field size factor varied with proton beam parameters, such as range, modulation, and calibration depth, and could decrease over 10% from a 10 cm to 3 cm diameter field for a large range proton beam. The XiO TPS predicted the field size factor relatively well at large field size, but could differ from measurements by 5% or more for small field and large range beams. Monte Carlo simulations predicted the field size factor within 1.5% of measurements. Conclusion: Output factor can vary largely with field size, and needs to be accounted for accurate proton beam delivery. This is especially important for small field beams such as in stereotactic proton therapy, where the field size dependence is large and TPS calculation is inaccurate. Measurements or Monte Carlo simulations are recommended for output determination for such cases.« less
  • Purpose: The design of the linac head is different for TrueBeam than Clinac, and there are differences in measured dose distributions in water phantoms between TrueBeam and Clinac for electron beams. Therefore, MC models for Clinac may not be applied directly to the Truebeam linac. The purpose of this study is to validate a Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation framework for electron beams on Varian TrueBeam with phase space files provided by Varian. Methods: The particle histories from the phase space file were used as input for the down-stream simulation including jaws, applicators, and water phantom. MC packages BEAMnrc/DOSYXZnrc weremore » used. The down-stream beam components were modeled according to manufacturer specifications and the dose distributions were compared with the measured data of standard cones. The measurements were performed in a water phantom with a p-type electron field diode (diameter 0.2cm) and ion chamber (CC13). Depth dose and orthogonal profiles at depths defined by R{sub 1} {sub 0} {sub 0}, R{sub 5} {sub 0}, Rp were compared. Results: Preliminary results for a 16 MeV phase space and 10x10, 15x15, and 20x20 cm{sup 2} applicator are presented. Simulations were run for a statistical uncertainty of <2% at depth of maximum dose for a voxel resolution of 0.5x0.5x0.2cm{sup 2}. Dose and range differences for the PDD profiles were within 2% and 1 mm, respectively. Dose differences within the central 80% of the beam width for the orthogonal profiles at depth of maximum dose were less than 2% for the 10x10, 15x15, and 20x20 cm{sup 2} applicator, respectively. Conclusion: Varian electron phase space files simulations are in agreement with measured commissioning data. These phase space files can be used in the simulation of TrueBeam linacs, and will provide reproducibility across publications. Analyses for all electron energies and standard applicators are under way and results will be included in the presentation.« less
  • Purpose: To use the Attila deterministic solver as a supplement to Monte Carlo for calculating out-of-field organ dose in support of epidemiological studies looking at the risks of second cancers. Supplemental dosimetry tools are needed to speed up dose calculations for studies involving large-scale patient cohorts. Methods: Attila is a multi-group discrete ordinates code which can solve the 3D photon-electron coupled linear Boltzmann radiation transport equation on a finite-element mesh. Dose is computed by multiplying the calculated particle flux in each mesh element by a medium-specific energy deposition cross-section. The out-of-field dosimetry capability of Attila is investigated by comparing averagemore » organ dose to that which is calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. The test scenario consists of a 6 MV external beam treatment of a female patient with a tumor in the left breast. The patient is simulated by a whole-body adult reference female computational phantom. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using MCNP6 and XVMC. Attila can export a tetrahedral mesh for MCNP6, allowing for a direct comparison between the two codes. The Attila and Monte Carlo methods were also compared in terms of calculation speed and complexity of simulation setup. A key perquisite for this work was the modeling of a Varian Clinac 2100 linear accelerator. Results: The solid mesh of the torso part of the adult female phantom for the Attila calculation was prepared using the CAD software SpaceClaim. Preliminary calculations suggest that Attila is a user-friendly software which shows great promise for our intended application. Computational performance is related to the number of tetrahedral elements included in the Attila calculation. Conclusion: Attila is being explored as a supplement to the conventional Monte Carlo radiation transport approach for performing retrospective patient dosimetry. The goal is for the dosimetry to be sufficiently accurate for use in retrospective epidemiological investigations.« less
  • Purpose: This study investigated the surface dose variation in preclinical irradiation using small animal, when monoenergetic photon beams with energy range from 50 keV to 1.25 MeV were used. Methods: Inhomogeneous, homogeneous and bone-tissue homogeneous mouse phantom based on the same CT image set were used. The homogeneous and bone-tissue homogeneous phantom were created with the relative electron density of all and only bone voxels of the mouse overridden to one, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation based on the EGSnrc-based code was used to calculate the surface dose, when the phantoms were irradiated by a 360° photon arc with energies rangingmore » from 50 keV to 1.25 MeV. The mean surface doses of the three phantoms were calculated. In addition, the surface doses from partial arcs, 45°–315°, 125°–225°, 45°–125° and 225°–315° covering the anterior, posterior, right lateral and left lateral region of the mouse were determined using different photon beam energies. Results: When the prescribed dose at the isocenter of the mouse was 2 Gy, the maximum mean surface doses, found at the 50-keV photon beams, were 0.358 Gy, 0.363 Gy and 0.350 Gy for the inhomogeneous, homogeneous and bone-tissue homogeneous mouse phantom, respectively. The mean surface dose of the mouse was found decreasing with an increase of the photon beam energy. For surface dose in different orientations, the lateral regions of the mouse were receiving lower dose than the anterior and posterior regions. This may be due to the increase of beam attenuation along the horizontal (left-right) axis than the vertical (anterior-posterior) in the mouse. Conclusion: It is concluded that consideration of phantom inhomogeneity in the dose calculation resulted in a lower mean surface dose of the mouse. The mean surface dose also decreased with an increase of photon beam energy in the kilovoltage range.« less