Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 93, Issue 3 , Pages 645-653, December 2009

Advanced kernel methods vs. Monte Carlo-based dose calculation for high energy photon beams

  • Irina Fotina

      Affiliations

    • Medical University Vienna/AKH Wien, Department of Radiotherapy, Austria
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Division Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University Vienna/AKH Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.
  • ,
  • Peter Winkler

      Affiliations

    • Medical University Vienna/AKH Wien, Department of Radiotherapy, Austria
  • ,
  • Thomas Künzler

      Affiliations

    • Medical University Vienna/AKH Wien, Department of Radiotherapy, Austria
  • ,
  • Jochen Reiterer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiotherapy, Kaiser Franz Josef Spital, Vienna, Austria
  • ,
  • Isabell Simmat

      Affiliations

    • Medical University Vienna/AKH Wien, Department of Radiotherapy, Austria
  • ,
  • Dietmar Georg

      Affiliations

    • Medical University Vienna/AKH Wien, Department of Radiotherapy, Austria

Received 16 March 2009; received in revised form 5 October 2009; accepted 7 October 2009. published online 19 November 2009.

Abstract 

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the dose calculation accuracy of advanced kernel-based methods and Monte Carlo algorithms in commercially available treatment planning systems.

Materials and methods

Following dose calculation algorithms and treatment planning (TPS) systems were compared: the collapsed cone (CC) convolution algorithm available in Oncentra Masterplan, the XVMC Monte Carlo algorithm implemented in iPlan and Monaco, and the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) implemented in Eclipse. Measurements were performed with a calibrated ionization chamber and radiochromic EBT type films in a homogenous polystyrene phantom and in heterogeneous lung phantoms. Single beam tests, conformal treatment plans and IMRT plans were validated. Dosimetric evaluations included absolute dose measurements, 1D γ-evaluation of depth–dose curves and profiles using 2mm and 2% dose difference criteria for single beam tests, and γ-evaluation of axial planes for composite treatment plans applying 3mm and 3% dose difference criteria.

Results

Absolute dosimetry revealed no large differences between MC and advanced kernel dose calculations. 1D γ-evaluation showed significant discrepancies between depth–dose curves in different phantom geometries. For the CC algorithm γmean values were 0.90±0.74 vs. 0.43±0.41 in heterogeneous vs. homogeneous conditions and for the AAA γmean values were 1.13±0.91 vs. 0.41±0.28, respectively. In general, 1D γ results obtained with both MC TPS were similar in both phantoms and on average equal to 0.5 both for profiles and depth–dose curves. The results obtained with the CC algorithm in heterogeneous phantoms were slightly better in comparison to the AAA algorithm. The 2D γ-evaluation results of IMRT plans and four-field plans showed smaller mean γ-values for MC dose calculations compared to the advanced kernel algorithms (γmean for four-field plan and IMRT obtained with Monaco MC were 0.28 and 0.5, respectively, vs. 0.40 and 0.54 for the AAA).

Conclusion

All TPS investigated in this study demonstrated accurate dose calculation in homogenous and heterogeneous phantoms. Commercially available TPS with Monte Carlo option performed best in heterogeneous phantoms. However, the difference between the CC and the MC algorithms was found to be small.

Keywords: Monte Carlo, Collapsed cone algorithm, AAA algorithm, EBT film dosimetry

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0167-8140(09)00607-0

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.10.013

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 93, Issue 3 , Pages 645-653, December 2009