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 ,Revised 5 October 2009 ,Accepted 7 October 2009.

References 

  1. Krieger T, Sauer OA. Monte Carlo- versus pencil-beam/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:859–868
  2. Paelinck L, Reynaert N, Thierens H, De Neve W, De Wagter C. Experimental verification of lung dose with radiochromic film: comparison with Monte Carlo simulations and commercially available treatment planning systems. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:2055–2069
  3. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Duch MA, Weber L, Ginjaume M, Eudaldo T, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in phantoms with lung equivalent heterogeneities under conditions of lateral electronic disequilibrium. Med Phys. 2004;31:2899–2911
  4. Fogliata A, Vanetti E, Albers D, et al. On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:1363–1385
  5. Ahnesjö A. Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 1989;16:577–592
  6. Knöös T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:5785–5807
  7. Vanderstraeten B, Reynaert N, Paelinck L, et al. Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: a comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations. Med Phys. 2006;33:3149–3158
  8. Bragg CM, Wingate K, Conway J. Clinical implications of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for IMRT treatment planning and verification. Radiother Oncol. 2008;86:276–284
  9. Paelinck L, De Smedt B, Reynaert N, et al. Comparison of dose–volume histograms of IMRT treatment plans for ethmoid sinus cancer computed by advanced treatment planning systems including Monte Carlo. Radiother Oncol. 2006;81:250–256
  10. Martens C, Reynaert N, De Wagter C, et al. Underdosage of the upper-airway mucosa for small fields as used in intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a comparison between radiochromic film measurements, Monte Carlo simulations, and collapsed cone convolution calculations. Med Phys. 2002;29:1528–1535
  11. Haedinger U, Krieger T, Flentje M, Wulf J. Influence of calculation model on dose distribution in stereotactic radiotherapy for pulmonary targets. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:239–249
  12. Hasenbalg F, Neuenschwander H, Mini R, Born EJ. Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:3679–3691
  13. Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE et al. Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning.
  14. Fippel M. Fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for photon beams based on the VMC electron algorithm. Med Phys. 1999;26:1466–1475
  15. Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:R99–R155
  16. Fippel M, Haryanto F, Dohm O, Nüsslin F, Kriesen S. A virtual photon energy fluence model for Monte Carlo dose calculation. Med Phys. 2003;30:301–311
  17. Ulmer W, Pyyry J, Kaissl W. A 3D photon superposition/convolution algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:1767–1790
  18. Bragg CM, Conway J. Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2006;81:315–323
  19. Nisbet A, Beange I, Vollmar HS, et al. Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situations. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:79–88
  20. Andreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfeld K, et al. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international Code of Practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 398. IAEA Vienna; 2000.
  21. Fuss M, Sturtewagen E, De Wagter C, Georg D. Dosimetric characterization of GafChromic EBT film and its implication on film dosimetry quality assurance. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:4211–4225
  22. Paelinck L, De Neve W, De Wagter C. Precautions and strategies in using a commercial flatbed scanner for radiochromic film dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:231–242
  23. Hrbacek J, Depuydt T, Nulens A, Swinnen A, Van den Heuvel F. Quantitative evaluation of a beam matching procedure using one-dimensional gamma analysis. Med Phys. 2007;34:2917–2927
  24. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25:656–661
  25. Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:399–411
  26. Olofsson J, Georg D, Karlsson M. A widely tested model for head scatter influence on photon beam output. Radiother Oncol. 2003;67:225–238
  27. Gershkevitsh E, Schmidt R, Velez G, et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems: results of IAEA pilot study. Radiother Oncol. 2009;89:338–346
  28. Schwarz M, Bos LJ, Mijnheer BJ, Lebesque JV, Damen EM. Importance of accurate dose calculations outside segment edges in intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:305–314
  29. Xing L, Siebers J, Keall P. Computational challenges for image-guided radiation therapy: framework and current research. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007;17:245–257
  30. Spoerk J, Bergmann H, Wanschitz F, Dong S, Birkfellner W. Fast DRR splat rendering using common consumer graphics hardware. Med Phys. 2007;34:4302–4308

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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution