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. 2016. "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 = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Phase-space files for Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam beams have been made available by Varian. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the distributed phase-space files for flattening filter free (FFF) beams, against experimental measurements from ten TrueBeam Linacs. Methods: The phase-space files have been used as input in PRIMO, a recently released Monte Carlo program based on thePENELOPE code. Simulations of 6 and 10 MV FFF were computed in a virtual water phantom for field sizes 3 × 3, 6 × 6, and 10 × 10 cm{sup 2} using 1 × 1more » × 1 mm{sup 3} voxels and for 20 × 20 and 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} with 2 × 2 × 2 mm{sup 3} voxels. The particles contained in the initial phase-space files were transported downstream to a plane just above the phantom surface, where a subsequent phase-space file was tallied. Particles were transported downstream this second phase-space file to the water phantom. Experimental data consisted of depth doses and profiles at five different depths acquired at SSD = 100 cm (seven datasets) and SSD = 90 cm (three datasets). Simulations and experimental data were compared in terms of dose difference. Gamma analysis was also performed using 1%, 1 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria of dose-difference and distance-to-agreement, respectively. Additionally, the parameters characterizing the dose profiles of unflattened beams were evaluated for both measurements and simulations. Results: Analysis of depth dose curves showed that dose differences increased with increasing field size and depth; this effect might be partly motivated due to an underestimation of the primary beam energy used to compute the phase-space files. Average dose differences reached 1% for the largest field size. Lateral profiles presented dose differences well within 1% for fields up to 20 × 20 cm{sup 2}, while the discrepancy increased toward 2% in the 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} cases. Gamma analysis resulted in an agreement of 100% when a 2%, 2 mm criterion was used, with the only exception of the 40 × 40 cm{sup 2} field (∼95% agreement). With the more stringent criteria of 1%, 1 mm, the agreement reduced to almost 95% for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm{sup 2}, worse for larger fields. Unflatness and slope FFF-specific parameters are in line with the possible energy underestimation of the simulated results relative to experimental data. Conclusions: The agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data proved that the evaluated Varian phase-space files for FFF beams from TrueBeam can be used as radiation sources for accurate Monte Carlo dose estimation, especially for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm{sup 2}, that is the range of field sizes mostly used in combination to the FFF, high dose rate beams.« 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 develop a framework for accurate electron Monte Carlo dose calculation. In this study, comprehensive validations of vendor provided electron beam phase space files for Varian TrueBeam Linacs against measurement data are presented. Methods: In this framework, the Monte Carlo generated phase space files were provided by the vendor and used as input to the downstream plan-specific simulations including jaws, electron applicators, and water phantom computed in the EGSnrc environment. The phase space files were generated based on open field commissioning data. A subset of electron energies of 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV and open and collimatedmore » field sizes 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 20 × 20, and 25 × 25 cm{sup 2} were evaluated. Measurements acquired with a CC13 cylindrical ionization chamber and electron diode detector and simulations from this framework were compared for a water phantom geometry. The evaluation metrics include percent depth dose, orthogonal and diagonal profiles at depths R{sub 100}, R{sub 50}, R{sub p}, and R{sub p+} for standard and extended source-to-surface distances (SSD), as well as cone and cut-out output factors. Results: Agreement for the percent depth dose and orthogonal profiles between measurement and Monte Carlo was generally within 2% or 1 mm. The largest discrepancies were observed within depths of 5 mm from phantom surface. Differences in field size, penumbra, and flatness for the orthogonal profiles at depths R{sub 100}, R{sub 50}, and R{sub p} were within 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2%, respectively. Orthogonal profiles at SSDs of 100 and 120 cm showed the same level of agreement. Cone and cut-out output factors agreed well with maximum differences within 2.5% for 6 MeV and 1% for all other energies. Cone output factors at extended SSDs of 105, 110, 115, and 120 cm exhibited similar levels of agreement. Conclusions: We have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for electron beam dose calculations for Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Electron beam energies of 6 to 20 MeV for open and collimated field sizes from 3 × 3 to 25 × 25 cm{sup 2} were studied and results were compared to the measurement data with excellent agreement. Application of this framework can thus be used as the platform for treatment planning of dynamic electron arc radiotherapy and other advanced dynamic techniques with electron beams.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the differences in dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) maps calculated in water by means of different strategies found in the literature in proton therapy Monte Carlo simulations and to compare their values with dose-mean lineal energy microdosimetry calculations. Methods: The Geant4 toolkit (version 9.6.2) was used. Dose and LETd maps in water were scored for primary protons with cylindrical voxels defined around the beam axis. Three LETd calculation methods were implemented. First, the LETd values were computed by calculating the unrestricted linear energy transfer (LET) associated to each single step weighted by the energy deposition (including delta-rays)more » along the step. Second, the LETd was obtained for each voxel by computing the LET along all the steps simulated for each proton track within the voxel, weighted by the energy deposition of those steps. Third, the LETd was scored as the quotient between the second momentum of the LET distribution, calculated per proton track, over the first momentum. These calculations were made with various voxel thicknesses (0.2 – 2.0 mm) for a 160 MeV proton beamlet and spread-out Bragg Peaks (SOBP). The dose-mean lineal energy was calculated in a uniformly-irradiated water sphere, 0.005 mm radius. Results: The value of the LETd changed systematically with the voxel thickness due to delta-ray emission and the enlargement of the LET distribution spread, especially at shallow depths. Differences of up to a factor 1.8 were found at the depth of maximum dose, leading to similar differences at the central and distal depths of the SOBPs. The third LETd calculation method gave better agreement with microdosimetry calculations around the Bragg Peak. Conclusion: Significant differences were found between LETd map Monte Carlo calculations due to both the calculation strategy and the voxel thickness used. This could have a significant impact in radiobiologically-optimized proton therapy treatments.« less