A 3D photon superposition/convolution algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations*

The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA.At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.”For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided.PACS number: 87.53.Dq

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

Breitman

Rathee

Newcomb

et al. 2007

“…The Eclipse TPS used in this study employs an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) ( 32 ) to calculate the dose more precisely at low density regions. ( 33 ) The AAA algorithm makes use of precalculated Monte Carlo dose kernels and provides better dose modeling than the pencil beam algorithm, especially for heterogeneous media.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system

Lin

Koren

Veltchev

et al. 2013

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10×10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10×10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (<1.2% drop) for the 2%–3% dose and 2 mm–3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3 mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation...

“…( 14 , 15 ) The pencil beam used MC simulations with adjustment based on measurement to consider the primary photons, scattered extrafocal photons and scattered electrons. The longitudinal distribution of the pencil beam is scaled using the equivalent path length method, and the lateral distribution of the pencil beam is scaled according to the equivalent path length to the calculation point based on the densities relative to water in the previous layer of the irradiated volume.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all superposition/convolution methods, the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm ( 13 ) and anisotropic analytical algorithm ( 14 , 15 ) (AAA) are popular, and have a good accuracy in heterogeneous media. There were a number of evaluations concerning dose calculations of the AAA and CCC in the heterogeneous media using various heterogeneous and homogeneous phantoms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetry of oblique tangential photon beams calculated by superposition/convolution algorithms: a Monte Carlo evaluation

Chow

Jiang

Leung

2010

Although there are many works on evaluating dose calculations of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) using various homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, related work concerning dosimetry due to tangential photon beam is lacking. In this study, dosimetry predicted by the AAA and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm was evaluated using the tangential photon beam and phantom geometry. The photon beams of 6 and 15 MV with field sizes of 4×4 (or 7×7), 10×10 and 20×20 cm2, produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator, were used to test performances of the AAA and CCC using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation (EGSnrc‐based code) as a benchmark. Horizontal dose profiles at different depths, phantom skin profiles (i.e., vertical dose profiles at a distance of 2 mm from the phantom lateral surface), gamma dose distributions, and dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of skin slab were determined. For dose profiles at different depths, the CCC agreed better with doses in the air‐phantom region, while both the AAA and CCC agreed well with doses in the penumbra region, when compared to the MC. Gamma evaluations between the AAA/CCC and MC showed that deviations of 2D dose distribution occurred in both beam edges in the phantom and air‐phantom interface. Moreover, the gamma dose deviation is less significant in the air‐phantom interface than the penumbra. DVHs of skin slab showed that both the AAA and CCC underestimated the width of the dose drop‐off region for both the 6 and 15MV photon beams. When the gantry angle was 0°, it was found that both the AAA and CCC overestimated doses in the phantom skin profiles compared to the MC, with various photon beam energies and field sizes. The mean dose differences with doses normalized to the prescription point for the AAA and CCC were respectively:7.6%±2.6% and 2.1%±1.3% for a 10×10 cm2 field, 6 MV; 16.3%±2.1% and 6.7%±2.1% for a 20×20 cm2 field, 6 MV; 5.5%±1.2% and 1.7%±1.4% for a 10×10 cm2, 15 MV; 18.0%±1.3% and 8.3%±1.8% for a 20×20 cm2, 15 MV. However, underestimations of doses in the phantom skin profile were found with small fields of 4×4 and 7×7 cm2 for the 6 and 15 MV photon beams, respectively, when the gantry was turned 5° anticlockwise. As surface dose with tangential photon beam geometry is important in some radiation treatment sites such as breast, chest wall and sarcoma, it is found that neither of the treatment planning system algorithms can predict the dose well at depths shallower than 2 mm. The dosimetry data and beam and phantom geometry in this study provide a better knowledge of a dose calculation algorithm in tangential‐like irradiation.PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kh, 87.56.jf