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

Title: SU-G-TeP1-14: SRS Dose Calculation Accuracy Comparison Between Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) outcomes are related to the delivered dose to the target and to surrounding tissue. We have commissioned a Monte Carlo based dose calculation algorithm to recalculated the delivered dose planned using pencil beam calculation dose engine. Methods: Twenty consecutive previously treated patients have been selected for this study. All plans were generated using the iPlan treatment planning system (TPS) and calculated using the pencil beam algorithm. Each patient plan consisted of 1 to 3 targets and treated using dynamically conformal arcs or intensity modulated beams. Multi-target treatments were delivered using multiple isocenters, one for each target. These plans were recalculated for the purpose of this study using a single isocenter. The CT image sets along with the plan, doses and structures were DICOM exported to Monaco TPS and the dose was recalculated using the same voxel resolution and monitor units. Benchmark data was also generated prior to patient calculations to assess the accuracy of the two TPS against measurements using a micro ionization chamber in solid water. Results: Good agreement, within −0.4% for Monaco and +2.2% for iPlan were observed for measurements in water phantom. Doses in patient geometry revealed up to 9.6% differences for singlemore » target plans and 9.3% for multiple-target-multiple-isocenter plans. The average dose differences for multi-target-single-isocenter plans were approximately 1.4%. Similar differences were observed for the OARs and integral dose. Conclusion: Accuracy of the beam is crucial for the dose calculation especially in the case of small fields such as those used in SRS treatments. A superior dose calculation algorithm such as Monte Carlo, with properly commissioned beam models, which is unaffected by the lack of electronic equilibrium should be preferred for the calculation of small fields to improve accuracy.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. University of Texas HSC SA, San Antonio, TX (United States)
  2. University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649354
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; ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; BEAMS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; INTEGRAL DOSES; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PATIENTS; PLANNING

Citation Formats

Stathakis, S, Defoor, D, Saenz, D, Kirby, N, Papanikolaou, N, and Mavroidis, P. SU-G-TeP1-14: SRS Dose Calculation Accuracy Comparison Between Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957004.
Stathakis, S, Defoor, D, Saenz, D, Kirby, N, Papanikolaou, N, & Mavroidis, P. SU-G-TeP1-14: SRS Dose Calculation Accuracy Comparison Between Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957004.
Stathakis, S, Defoor, D, Saenz, D, Kirby, N, Papanikolaou, N, and Mavroidis, P. Wed . "SU-G-TeP1-14: SRS Dose Calculation Accuracy Comparison Between Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957004.
@article{osti_22649354,
title = {SU-G-TeP1-14: SRS Dose Calculation Accuracy Comparison Between Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms},
author = {Stathakis, S and Defoor, D and Saenz, D and Kirby, N and Papanikolaou, N and Mavroidis, P},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) outcomes are related to the delivered dose to the target and to surrounding tissue. We have commissioned a Monte Carlo based dose calculation algorithm to recalculated the delivered dose planned using pencil beam calculation dose engine. Methods: Twenty consecutive previously treated patients have been selected for this study. All plans were generated using the iPlan treatment planning system (TPS) and calculated using the pencil beam algorithm. Each patient plan consisted of 1 to 3 targets and treated using dynamically conformal arcs or intensity modulated beams. Multi-target treatments were delivered using multiple isocenters, one for each target. These plans were recalculated for the purpose of this study using a single isocenter. The CT image sets along with the plan, doses and structures were DICOM exported to Monaco TPS and the dose was recalculated using the same voxel resolution and monitor units. Benchmark data was also generated prior to patient calculations to assess the accuracy of the two TPS against measurements using a micro ionization chamber in solid water. Results: Good agreement, within −0.4% for Monaco and +2.2% for iPlan were observed for measurements in water phantom. Doses in patient geometry revealed up to 9.6% differences for single target plans and 9.3% for multiple-target-multiple-isocenter plans. The average dose differences for multi-target-single-isocenter plans were approximately 1.4%. Similar differences were observed for the OARs and integral dose. Conclusion: Accuracy of the beam is crucial for the dose calculation especially in the case of small fields such as those used in SRS treatments. A superior dose calculation algorithm such as Monte Carlo, with properly commissioned beam models, which is unaffected by the lack of electronic equilibrium should be preferred for the calculation of small fields to improve accuracy.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957004},
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: To present a comparison of the accuracy of two commercial electron beam treatment planning systems: one uses a Monte Carlo algorithm and the other uses a pencil beam model for dose calculations. Methods and Materials: For the same inhomogeneous phantoms and incident beams, measured dose distributions are compared with those predicted by the commercial treatment planning systems at different source-to-surface distances (SSDs). The accuracy of the pencil beam system for monitor unit calculations is also tested at various SSDs. Beam energies of 6-20 MeV are used. Results: The pencil beam model shows some serious limitations in predicting hot andmore » cold spots in inhomogeneous phantoms for small low- or high-density inhomogeneities, especially for low-energy electron beams, such as 9 MeV. Errors (>10%) are seen in predicting high- and low-dose variations for three-dimensional inhomogeneous phantoms. The Monte Carlo calculated results generally agree much better with measurements. Conclusions: The accuracy of the pencil beam calculations is difficult to predict because it depends on both the inhomogeneity geometry and location. The pencil beam calculations using CADPLAN result in large errors in phantoms containing three-dimensional type inhomogeneities. The Monte Carlo method in Theraplan Plus dose calculation module is shown to be more robust in accurately predicting dose distributions and monitor units under the tested conditions.« less
  • To compare the doses calculated using the BrainLAB pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for tumors located in various sites including the lung and evaluate quality assurance procedures required for the verification of the accuracy of dose calculation. The dose-calculation accuracy of PB and MC was also assessed quantitatively with measurement using ionization chamber and Gafchromic films placed in solid water and heterogeneous phantoms. The dose was calculated using PB convolution and MC algorithms in the iPlan treatment planning system from BrainLAB. The dose calculation was performed on the patient's computed tomography images with lesions in various treatmentmore » sites including 5 lungs, 5 prostates, 4 brains, 2 head and necks, and 2 paraspinal tissues. A combination of conventional, conformal, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans was used in dose calculation. The leaf sequence from intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans or beam shapes from conformal plans and monitor units and other planning parameters calculated by the PB were identical for calculating dose with MC. Heterogeneity correction was considered in both PB and MC dose calculations. Dose-volume parameters such as V95 (volume covered by 95% of prescription dose), dose distributions, and gamma analysis were used to evaluate the calculated dose by PB and MC. The measured doses by ionization chamber and EBT GAFCHROMIC film in solid water and heterogeneous phantoms were used to quantitatively asses the accuracy of dose calculated by PB and MC. The dose-volume histograms and dose distributions calculated by PB and MC in the brain, prostate, paraspinal, and head and neck were in good agreement with one another (within 5%) and provided acceptable planning target volume coverage. However, dose distributions of the patients with lung cancer had large discrepancies. For a plan optimized with PB, the dose coverage was shown as clinically acceptable, whereas in reality, the MC showed a systematic lack of dose coverage. The dose calculated by PB for lung tumors was overestimated by up to 40%. An interesting feature that was observed is that despite large discrepancies in dose-volume histogram coverage of the planning target volume between PB and MC, the point doses at the isocenter (center of the lesions) calculated by both algorithms were within 7% even for lung cases. The dose distributions measured with EBT GAFCHROMIC films in heterogeneous phantoms showed large discrepancies of nearly 15% lower than PB at interfaces between heterogeneous media, where these lower doses measured by the film were in agreement with those by MC. The doses (V95) calculated by MC and PB agreed within 5% for treatment sites with small tissue heterogeneities such as the prostate, brain, head and neck, and paraspinal tumors. Considerable discrepancies, up to 40%, were observed in the dose-volume coverage between MC and PB in lung tumors, which may affect clinical outcomes. The discrepancies between MC and PB increased for 15 MV compared with 6 MV indicating the importance of implementation of accurate clinical treatment planning such as MC. The comparison of point doses is not representative of the discrepancies in dose coverage and might be misleading in evaluating the accuracy of dose calculation between PB and MC. Thus, the clinical quality assurance procedures required to verify the accuracy of dose calculation using PB and MC need to consider measurements of 2- and 3-dimensional dose distributions rather than a single point measurement using heterogeneous phantoms instead of homogenous water-equivalent phantoms.« less
  • Purpose: Dose calculation based on pencil beam (PB) algorithms has its shortcomings predicting dose in tissue heterogeneities. The aim of this study was to compare dose distributions of clinically applied non-intensity-modulated radiotherapy 15-MV plans for stereotactic body radiotherapy between voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) calculation and PB calculation for lung lesions. Methods and Materials: To validate XVMC, one treatment plan was verified in an inhomogeneous thorax phantom with EDR2 film (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY). Both measured and calculated (PB and XVMC) dose distributions were compared regarding profiles and isodoses. Then, 35 lung plans originally created for clinical treatment by PB calculationmore » with the Eclipse planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) were recalculated by XVMC (investigational implementation in PrecisePLAN [Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden]). Clinically relevant dose-volume parameters for target and lung tissue were compared and analyzed statistically. Results: The XVMC calculation agreed well with film measurements (<1% difference in lateral profile), whereas the deviation between PB calculation and film measurements was up to +15%. On analysis of 35 clinical cases, the mean dose, minimal dose and coverage dose value for 95% volume of gross tumor volume were 1.14 {+-} 1.72 Gy, 1.68 {+-} 1.47 Gy, and 1.24 {+-} 1.04 Gy lower by XVMC compared with PB, respectively (prescription dose, 30 Gy). The volume covered by the 9 Gy isodose of lung was 2.73% {+-} 3.12% higher when calculated by XVMC compared with PB. The largest differences were observed for small lesions circumferentially encompassed by lung tissue. Conclusions: Pencil beam dose calculation overestimates dose to the tumor and underestimates lung volumes exposed to a given dose consistently for 15-MV photons. The degree of difference between XVMC and PB is tumor size and location dependent. Therefore XVMC calculation is helpful to further optimize treatment planning.« less
  • Purpose: Investigating the relative sensitivity of Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms to low-Z (titanium) metallic artifacts is important for accurate and consistent dose reporting in post¬operative spinal RS. Methods: Sensitivity analysis of MC and PB dose calculation algorithms on the Monaco v.3.3 treatment planning system (Elekta CMS, Maryland Heights, MO, USA) was performed using CT images reconstructed without (plain) and with Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (OMAR; Philips Healthcare system, Cleveland, OH, USA). 6MV and 10MV volumetric-modulated arc (VMAT) RS plans were obtained for MC and PB on the plain and OMAR images (MC-plain/OMAR and PB-plain/OMAR).more » Results: Maximum differences in dose to 0.2cc (D0.2cc) of spinal cord and cord +2mm for 6MV and 10MV VMAT plans were 0.1Gy between MC-OMAR and MC-plain, and between PB-OMAR and PB-plain. Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage changed by 0.1±0.7% and 0.2±0.3% for 6MV and 10MV from MC-OMAR to MC-plain, and by 0.1±0.1% for both 6MV and 10 MV from PB-OMAR to PB-plain, respectively. In no case for both MC and PB the D0.2cc to spinal cord was found to exceed the planned tolerance changing from OMAR to plain CT in dose calculations. Conclusion: Dosimetric impacts of metallic artifacts caused by low-Z metallic spinal hardware (mainly titanium alloy) are not clinically important in VMAT-based spine RS, without significant dependence on dose calculation methods (MC and PB) and photon energy ≥ 6MV. There is no need to use one algorithm instead of the other to reduce uncertainty for dose reporting. The dose calculation method that should be used in spine RS shall be consistent with the usual clinical practice.« less
  • The accuracy of dose computation within the lungs depends strongly on the performance of the calculation algorithm in regions of electronic disequilibrium that arise near tissue inhomogeneities with large density variations. There is a lack of data evaluating the performance of highly developed analytical dose calculation algorithms compared to Monte Carlo computations in a clinical setting. We compared full Monte Carlo calculations (performed by our Monte Carlo dose engine MCDE) with two different commercial convolution/superposition (CS) implementations (Pinnacle-CS and Helax-TMS's collapsed cone model Helax-CC) and one pencil beam algorithm (Helax-TMS's pencil beam model Helax-PB) for 10 intensity modulated radiation therapymore » (IMRT) lung cancer patients. Treatment plans were created for two photon beam qualities (6 and 18 MV). For each dose calculation algorithm, patient, and beam quality, the following set of clinically relevant dose-volume values was reported: (i) minimal, median, and maximal dose (D{sub min}, D{sub 50}, and D{sub max}) for the gross tumor and planning target volumes (GTV and PTV); (ii) the volume of the lungs (excluding the GTV) receiving at least 20 and 30 Gy (V{sub 20} and V{sub 30}) and the mean lung dose; (iii) the 33rd percentile dose (D{sub 33}) and D{sub max} delivered to the heart and the expanded esophagus; and (iv) D{sub max} for the expanded spinal cord. Statistical analysis was performed by means of one-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements and Tukey pairwise comparison of means. Pinnacle-CS showed an excellent agreement with MCDE within the target structures, whereas the best correspondence for the organs at risk (OARs) was found between Helax-CC and MCDE. Results from Helax-PB were unsatisfying for both targets and OARs. Additionally, individual patient results were analyzed. Within the target structures, deviations above 5% were found in one patient for the comparison of MCDE and Helax-CC, while all differences between MCDE and Pinnacle-CS were below 5%. For both Pinnacle-CS and Helax-CC, deviations from MCDE above 5% were found within the OARs: within the lungs for two (6 MV) and six (18 MV) patients for Pinnacle-CS, and within other OARs for two patients for Helax-CC (for D{sub max} of the heart and D{sub 33} of the expanded esophagus) but only for 6 MV. For one patient, all four algorithms were used to recompute the dose after replacing all computed tomography voxels within the patient's skin contour by water. This made all differences above 5% between MCDE and the other dose calculation algorithms disappear. Thus, the observed deviations mainly arose from differences in particle transport modeling within the lungs, and the commissioning of the algorithms was adequately performed (or the commissioning was less important for this type of treatment). In conclusion, not one pair of the dose calculation algorithms we investigated could provide results that were consistent within 5% for all 10 patients for the set of clinically relevant dose-volume indices studied. As the results from both CS algorithms differed significantly, care should be taken when evaluating treatment plans as the choice of dose calculation algorithm may influence clinical results. Full Monte Carlo provides a great benchmarking tool for evaluating the performance of other algorithms for patient dose computations.« less