A Monte Carlo treatment plan verification (MCTPV) system was developed for clinical treatment plan verification (TPV), especially for the conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans. In the MCTPV, the MCNPX code was used for particle transport through the accelerator head and the patient body. MCTPV has an interface with TiGRT planning system and reads the information which is needed for Monte Carlo calculation transferred in digital image communications in medicine-radiation therapy (DICOM-RT) format. In MCTPV several methods were applied in order to reduce the simulation time. The relative dose distribution of a clinical prostate conformal plan calculated by the MCTPV was compared with that of TiGRT planning system. The results showed well implementation of the beams configuration and patient information in this system. For quantitative evaluation of MCTPV a two-dimensional (2D) diode array (MapCHECK2) and gamma index analysis were used. The gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) of an IMRT plan was found to be 98.5% for total beams. Also, comparison of the measured and Monte Carlo calculated doses at several points inside an inhomogeneous phantom for 6- and 18-MV photon beams showed a good agreement (within 1.5%). The accuracy and timing results of MCTPV showed that MCTPV could be used very efficiently for additional assessment of complicated plans such as IMRT plan.
Background:Performing audits play an important role in quality assurance program in radiation oncology. Among different algorithms, TiGRT is one of the common application software for dose calculation. This study aimed to clinical implications of TiGRT algorithm to measure dose and compared to calculated dose delivered to the patients for a variety of cases, with and without the presence of inhomogeneities and beam modifiers.Materials and Methods:Nonhomogeneous phantom as quality dose verification phantom, Farmer ionization chambers, and PC-electrometer (Sun Nuclear, USA) as a reference class electrometer was employed throughout the audit in linear accelerators 6 and 18 MV energies (Siemens ONCOR Impression Plus, Germany). Seven test cases were performed using semi CIRS phantom.Results:In homogeneous regions and simple plans for both energies, there was a good agreement between measured and treatment planning system calculated dose. Their relative error was found to be between 0.8% and 3% which is acceptable for audit, but in nonhomogeneous organs, such as lung, a few errors were observed. In complex treatment plans, when wedge or shield in the way of energy is used, the error was in the accepted criteria. In complex beam plans, the difference between measured and calculated dose was found to be 2%–3%. All differences were obtained between 0.4% and 1%.Conclusions:A good consistency was observed for the same type of energy in the homogeneous and nonhomogeneous phantom for the three-dimensional conformal field with a wedge, shield, asymmetric using the TiGRT treatment planning software in studied center. The results revealed that the national status of TPS calculations and dose delivery for 3D conformal radiotherapy was globally within acceptable standards with no major causes for concern.
Full buildup diodes can cause significant dose perturbation if they are used on most or all of radiotherapy fractions. Given the importance of frequent in vivo measurements in complex treatments, using thin buildup (low‐perturbation) diodes instead is gathering interest. However, such diodes are strictly unsuitable for high‐energy photons; therefore, their use requires evaluation and careful measurement of correction factors (CFs). There is little published data on such factors for low‐perturbation diodes, and none on diode characterization for 9 MV X‐rays. We report on MCNP4c Monte Carlo models of low‐perturbation (EDD5) and medium‐perturbation (EDP10) diodes, and a comparison of source‐to‐surface distance, field size, temperature, and orientation CFs for cobalt‐60 and 9 MV beams. Most of the simulation results were within 4% of the measurements. The results suggest against the use of the EDD5 in axial angles beyond ±50° and exceeding the range 0° to +50° tilt angle at 9 MV. Outside these ranges, although the EDD5 can be used for accurate in vivo dosimetry at 9 MV, its CF variations were found to be 1.5–7.1 times larger than the EDP10 and, therefore, should be applied carefully. Finally, the MCNP diode models are sufficiently reliable tools for independent verification of potentially inaccurate measurements.PACS numbers: 87.10.Rt; 87.50.cm; 87.55.km; 87.56.Fc
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.