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

Title: SU-F-T-667: Development and Validation of Dose Calculation for An Open-Source KV Treatment Planning System for Small Animal Radiotherapy

Abstract

Purpose: An open-source, convolution/superposition based kV-treatment planning system(TPS) was developed for small animal radiotherapy from previously existed in-house MV-TPS. It is flexible and applicable to both step and shoot and helical tomotherapy treatment delivery. For initial commissioning process, the dose calculation from kV-TPS was compared with measurements and Monte Carlo(MC) simulations. Methods: High resolution, low energy kernels were simulated using EGSnrc user code EDKnrc, which was used as an input in kV-TPS together with MC-simulated x-ray beam spectrum. The Blue Water™ homogeneous phantom (with film inserts) and heterogeneous phantom (with film and TLD inserts) were fabricated. Phantom was placed at 100cm SSD, and was irradiated with 250 kVp beam for 10mins with 1.1cm × 1.1cm open field (at 100cm) created by newly designed binary micro-MLC assembly positioned at 90cm SSD. Gafchromic™ EBT3 film was calibrated in-phantom following AAPM TG-61 guidelines, and were used for measurement at 5 different depths in phantom. Calibrated TLD-100s were obtained from ADCL. EGS and MNCP5 simulation were used to model experimental irradiation set up calculation of dose in phantom. Results: Using the homogeneous phantom, dose difference between film and kV-TPS was calculated: mean(x)=0.9%; maximum difference(MD)=3.1%; standard deviation(σ)=1.1%. Dose difference between MCNP5 and kV-TPS was: x=1.5%;more » MD=4.6%; σ=1.9%. Dose difference between EGS and kV-TPS was: x=0.8%; MD=1.9%; σ=0.8%. Using the heterogeneous phantom, dose difference between film and kV-TPS was: x=2.6%; MD=3%; σ=1.1%; and dose difference between TLD and kV-TPS was: x=2.9%; MD=6.4%; σ=2.5%. Conclusion: The inhouse, open-source kV-TPS dose calculation system was comparable within 5% of measurements and MC simulations in both homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. The dose calculation system of the kV-TPS is validated as a part of initial commissioning process for small animal radiotherapy. The kV-TPS has the potential for accurate dose calculation for any kV treatment or imaging modalities.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ; ; ; ;  [2];  [3];  [4]
  1. M D Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
  2. University of Wisconsin- Madison, Madison, WI (United States)
  3. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA (United States)
  4. University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649222
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; ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; DOSES; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; SIMULATION; X RADIATION; X-RAY SPECTRA

Citation Formats

Prajapati, S, Mo, X, Bednarz, B, Lawless, M, Hammer, C, Jeraj, R, Mackie, T, Flynn, R, and Westerly, D. SU-F-T-667: Development and Validation of Dose Calculation for An Open-Source KV Treatment Planning System for Small Animal Radiotherapy. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956853.
Prajapati, S, Mo, X, Bednarz, B, Lawless, M, Hammer, C, Jeraj, R, Mackie, T, Flynn, R, & Westerly, D. SU-F-T-667: Development and Validation of Dose Calculation for An Open-Source KV Treatment Planning System for Small Animal Radiotherapy. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956853.
Prajapati, S, Mo, X, Bednarz, B, Lawless, M, Hammer, C, Jeraj, R, Mackie, T, Flynn, R, and Westerly, D. Wed . "SU-F-T-667: Development and Validation of Dose Calculation for An Open-Source KV Treatment Planning System for Small Animal Radiotherapy". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956853.
@article{osti_22649222,
title = {SU-F-T-667: Development and Validation of Dose Calculation for An Open-Source KV Treatment Planning System for Small Animal Radiotherapy},
author = {Prajapati, S and Mo, X and Bednarz, B and Lawless, M and Hammer, C and Jeraj, R and Mackie, T and Flynn, R and Westerly, D},
abstractNote = {Purpose: An open-source, convolution/superposition based kV-treatment planning system(TPS) was developed for small animal radiotherapy from previously existed in-house MV-TPS. It is flexible and applicable to both step and shoot and helical tomotherapy treatment delivery. For initial commissioning process, the dose calculation from kV-TPS was compared with measurements and Monte Carlo(MC) simulations. Methods: High resolution, low energy kernels were simulated using EGSnrc user code EDKnrc, which was used as an input in kV-TPS together with MC-simulated x-ray beam spectrum. The Blue Water™ homogeneous phantom (with film inserts) and heterogeneous phantom (with film and TLD inserts) were fabricated. Phantom was placed at 100cm SSD, and was irradiated with 250 kVp beam for 10mins with 1.1cm × 1.1cm open field (at 100cm) created by newly designed binary micro-MLC assembly positioned at 90cm SSD. Gafchromic™ EBT3 film was calibrated in-phantom following AAPM TG-61 guidelines, and were used for measurement at 5 different depths in phantom. Calibrated TLD-100s were obtained from ADCL. EGS and MNCP5 simulation were used to model experimental irradiation set up calculation of dose in phantom. Results: Using the homogeneous phantom, dose difference between film and kV-TPS was calculated: mean(x)=0.9%; maximum difference(MD)=3.1%; standard deviation(σ)=1.1%. Dose difference between MCNP5 and kV-TPS was: x=1.5%; MD=4.6%; σ=1.9%. Dose difference between EGS and kV-TPS was: x=0.8%; MD=1.9%; σ=0.8%. Using the heterogeneous phantom, dose difference between film and kV-TPS was: x=2.6%; MD=3%; σ=1.1%; and dose difference between TLD and kV-TPS was: x=2.9%; MD=6.4%; σ=2.5%. Conclusion: The inhouse, open-source kV-TPS dose calculation system was comparable within 5% of measurements and MC simulations in both homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. The dose calculation system of the kV-TPS is validated as a part of initial commissioning process for small animal radiotherapy. The kV-TPS has the potential for accurate dose calculation for any kV treatment or imaging modalities.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956853},
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: Validation of iBEAM™ evo couch-top for different relative electron density (RED) combination during photon beam dose calculation in Monaco− TPS. Methods: The iBEAM™ evo couch-top has two layers:outer carbon fiber (CF) and inner foam core (FC). To study the beam intensity attenuation of couch-top, measured doses were compared with doses calculated for different REDs. Measurements were performed in solid water phantom with PTW-0.125cc ion-chamber positioned at center of the phantom with 5.3cm thickness slabs placed above and below the chamber. Similarly, in TPS, iBEAM™ evo couch-top was simulated and doses were calculated for different RED combinations (0.2CF-0.2FC, 0.4CF-0.2FC, 0.6CF-0.2FC,more » 0.8CF-0.2FC, and 1.0CF-0.2FC) by using Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in Monaco TPS (V5.1). Doses were measured for every 10 degree gantry angle separation, 10×10cm{sup 2} field size and 6MV photons. Then, attenuation is defined as the ratio of output at posterior gantry angle to output of its opposed anterior gantry angle (e.g.225°/45°). output fluctuation with different gantry angle was within ±0.21%. To confirm above results, dose-planes were measured for five pelvic VMAT plans (360°arc) in PTW two-dimensional array and compared with different calculated dose-planes of above-mentioned couch REDs. Gamma pass rates<1.00) were analyzed for 3%/2mm criteria. Results: Measured and calculated attenuation was in good agreement for the RED combination of 0.2CF-0.2FC and difference was within ±0.515%. However, other density combination showed difference of ±0.9841%, ±1.667%, ±2.9241% and ±2.8832% for 0.4CF-0.2FC, 0.6CF-0.2FC, 0.8CF-0.2FC, and 1.0CF-0.2FC, respectively. Maximum couch-top attenuation was observed at 110°–120° and 240°–250° and decreases linearly as the gantry angle approaches 180°. Moreover, gamma pass rate confirmed the above results and showed maximum pass rate of 96.23% for 0.2CF-0.2FC, whereas others were 95.72%, 95.12%, 94.31% and 93.24%. Conclusion: RED value of 0.2CF-0.2FC was found to be suitable for accurate couch-top modeling for 6MV photon beam Monte Carlo calculations in Monaco TPS.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluated the performance of the electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in RayStation v4.0 for an Elekta machine with Agility™ treatment head. Methods: The machine has five electron energies (6–8 MeV) and five applicators (6×6 to 25×25 cm {sup 2}). The dose (cGy/MU at d{sub max}), depth dose and profiles were measured in water using an electron diode at 100 cm SSD for nine square fields ≥2×2 cm{sup 2} and four complex fields at normal incidence, and a 14×14 cm{sup 2} field at 15° and 30° incidence. The dose was also measured for three square fields ≥4×4more » cm{sup 2} at 98, 105 and 110 cm SSD. Using selected energies, the EBT3 radiochromic film was used for dose measurements in slab-shaped inhomogeneous phantoms and a breast phantom with surface curvature. The measured and calculated doses were analyzed using a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm. Results: The calculated and measured doses varied by <3% for 116 of the 120 points, and <5% for the 4×4 cm{sup 2} field at 110 cm SSD at 9–18 MeV. The gamma analysis comparing the 105 pairs of in-water isodoses passed by >98.1%. The planar doses measured from films placed at 0.5 cm below a lung/tissue layer (12 MeV) and 1.0 cm below a bone/air layer (15 MeV) showed excellent agreement with calculations, with gamma passing by 99.9% and 98.5%, respectively. At the breast-tissue interface, the gamma passing rate is >98.8% at 12–18 MeV. The film results directly validated the accuracy of MU calculation and spatial dose distribution in presence of tissue inhomogeneity and surface curvature - situations challenging for simpler pencil-beam algorithms. Conclusion: The electron Monte Carlo algorithm in RayStation v4.0 is fully validated for clinical use for the Elekta Agility™ machine. The comprehensive validation included small fields, complex fields, oblique beams, extended distance, tissue inhomogeneity and surface curvature.« less
  • Purpose: Eclipse AcurosPT 13.7, the first commercial Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy treatment planning system (TPS), was experimentally validated for an IBA dedicated PBS nozzle in the CIRS 002LFC thoracic phantom. Methods: A two-stage procedure involving the use of TOPAS 1.3 simulations was performed. First, Geant4-based TOPAS simulations in this phantom were experimentally validated for single and multi-spot profiles at several depths for 100, 115, 150, 180, 210 and 225 MeV proton beams, using the combination of a Lynx scintillation detector and a MatriXXPT ionization chamber array. Second, benchmark calculations were performed with both AcurosPT and TOPASmore » in a phantom identical to the CIRS 002LFC, with the exception that the CIRS bone/mediastinum/lung tissues were replaced with similar tissues that are predefined in AcurosPT (a limitation of this system which necessitates the two stage procedure). Results: Spot sigmas measured in tissue were in agreement within 0.2 mm of TOPAS simulation for all six energies, while AcurosPT was consistently found to have larger spot sigma (<0.7 mm) than TOPAS. Using absolute dose calibration by MatriXXPT, the agreements between profiles measurements and TOPAS simulation, and calculation benchmarks are over 97% except near the end of range using 2 mm/2% gamma criteria. Overdosing and underdosing were observed at the low and high density side of tissue interfaces, respectively, and these increased with increasing depth and decreasing energy. Near the mediastinum/lung interface, the magnitude can exceed 5 mm/10%. Furthermore, we observed >5% quenching effect in the conversion of Lynx measurements to dose. Conclusion: We recommend the use of an ionization chamber array in combination with the scintillation detector to measure absolute dose and relative PBS spot characteristics. We also recommend the use of an independent Monte Carlo calculation benchmark for the commissioning of a commercial TPS. Partially supported by Varian Medical System under the master agreement between Varian and University of pennsylvania.« less
  • Purpose: Eclipse proton Monte Carlo AcurosPT 13.7 was commissioned and experimentally validated for an IBA dedicated PBS nozzle in water. Topas 1.3 was used to isolate the cause of differences in output and penumbra between simulation and experiment. Methods: The spot profiles were measured in air at five locations using Lynx. PTW-34070 Bragg peak chamber (Freiburg, Germany) was used to collect the relative integral Bragg peak for 15 proton energies from 100 MeV to 225 MeV. The phase space parameters (σx, σθ, ρxθ) number of protons per MU, energy spread and calculated mean energy provided by AcurosPT were identically implementedmore » into Topas. The absolute dose, profiles and field size factors measured using ionization chamber arrays were compared with both AcurosPT and Topas. Results: The beam spot size, σx, and the angular spread, σθ, in air were both energy-dependent: in particular, the spot size in air at isocentre ranged from 2.8 to 5.3 mm, and the angular spread ranged from 2.7 mrad to 6 mrad. The number of protons per MU increased from ∼9E7 at 100 MeV to ∼1.5E8 at 225 MeV. Both AcurosPT and TOPAS agree with experiment within 2 mm penumbra difference or 3% dose difference for scenarios including central axis depth dose and profiles at two depths in multi-spot square fields, from 40 to 200 mm, for all the investigated single-energy and multi-energy beams, indicating clinically acceptable source model and radiation transport algorithm in water. Conclusion: By comparing measured data and TOPAS simulation using the same source model, the AcurosPT 13.7 was validated in water within 2 mm penumbra difference or 3% dose difference. Benchmarks versus an independent Monte Carlo code are recommended to study the agreement in output, filed size factors and penumbra differences. This project is partially supported by the Varian grant under the master agreement between University of Pennsylvania and Varian.« less
  • Purpose: In this study, the comparison of dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries Methods: Small open fields of Truebeam 2.0 unit (1×1, 2×2, 3×3, 4×4 fields) were used for this study. The fields were incident on homogeneous phantom and in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtaine dusing Trubeam 2.0 for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF, 15 MV energies by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48more » hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement betweent wo algorithms and measurement. For Acuros XB, minimum gamma analysis passin grates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.3% and 98.1% for homogeneousand inhomogeneous fields in thecase of lung and bone respectively. For AAA, minimum gamma analysis passingrates were 99.1% and 96.5% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for all used energies and field sizes.In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculations algorithms. Over all, when compared to measurement, theAcuros XB had beter agreement than AAA. Conclusion: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the TPS is an improvemen tover theexisting AAA algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.« less