Benchmarking Monte-Carlo dose calculation for MLC CyberKnife treatments.
Algorithms
Benchmarking
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ pathology
Male
Monte Carlo Method
Organs at Risk
/ radiation effects
Phantoms, Imaging
Prognosis
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ pathology
Radiosurgery
/ instrumentation
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Benchmarking
CyberKnife
Dose calculation
Monte Carlo
QA
TPS
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Sep 2019
18 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
13
06
2019
accepted:
27
08
2019
entrez:
20
9
2019
pubmed:
20
9
2019
medline:
15
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vendor-independent Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation (IDC) for patient-specific quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) based CyberKnife treatments is used to benchmark and validate the commercial MC dose calculation engine for MLC based treatments built into the CyberKnife treatment planning system (Precision MC). The benchmark included dose profiles in water in 15 mm depth and depth dose curves of rectangular MLC shaped fields ranging from 7.6 mm × 7.7 mm to 115.0 mm × 100.1 mm, which were compared between IDC, Precision MC and measurements in terms of dose difference and distance to agreement. Dose distributions of three phantom cases and seven clinical lung cases were calculated using both IDC and Precision MC. The lung PTVs ranged from 14 cm Absolute dose profiles in 15 mm depth in water showed agreement between Precision MC and IDC within 3.1% or 1 mm. Depth dose curves agreed within 2.3% / 1 mm. For the phantom and clinical lung cases, mean PTV doses differed from - 1.0 to + 2.3% between IDC and Precision MC and gamma passing rates were > =98.1% for all multiple beam treatment plans. For the lung cases, lung V20 agreed within ±1.5%. Calculation times ranged from 2.2 min (for 39 cm Both accuracy and efficiency of Precision MC in the context of MLC based planning for the CyberKnife M6 system were benchmarked against MC based IDC framework. Precision MC is used in clinical practice at our institute.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vendor-independent Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation (IDC) for patient-specific quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) based CyberKnife treatments is used to benchmark and validate the commercial MC dose calculation engine for MLC based treatments built into the CyberKnife treatment planning system (Precision MC).
METHODS
METHODS
The benchmark included dose profiles in water in 15 mm depth and depth dose curves of rectangular MLC shaped fields ranging from 7.6 mm × 7.7 mm to 115.0 mm × 100.1 mm, which were compared between IDC, Precision MC and measurements in terms of dose difference and distance to agreement. Dose distributions of three phantom cases and seven clinical lung cases were calculated using both IDC and Precision MC. The lung PTVs ranged from 14 cm
RESULTS
RESULTS
Absolute dose profiles in 15 mm depth in water showed agreement between Precision MC and IDC within 3.1% or 1 mm. Depth dose curves agreed within 2.3% / 1 mm. For the phantom and clinical lung cases, mean PTV doses differed from - 1.0 to + 2.3% between IDC and Precision MC and gamma passing rates were > =98.1% for all multiple beam treatment plans. For the lung cases, lung V20 agreed within ±1.5%. Calculation times ranged from 2.2 min (for 39 cm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both accuracy and efficiency of Precision MC in the context of MLC based planning for the CyberKnife M6 system were benchmarked against MC based IDC framework. Precision MC is used in clinical practice at our institute.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31533746
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1370-5
pii: 10.1186/s13014-019-1370-5
pmc: PMC6751815
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
172Références
JAMA. 2005 Feb 23;293(8):970-8
pubmed: 15728168
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Oct 7;52(19):N425-37
pubmed: 17881793
Med Phys. 2007 Dec;34(12):4818-53
pubmed: 18196810
Med Phys. 2008 Jun;35(6):2259-66
pubmed: 18649456
Med Phys. 2010 Feb;37(2):492-504
pubmed: 20229858
Med Dosim. 2011 Winter;36(4):347-50
pubmed: 21144731
Z Med Phys. 2011 May;21(2):124-34
pubmed: 21239148
Med Phys. 2011 Jun;38(6):2914-36
pubmed: 21815366
Cancer Treat Rev. 2014 Feb;40(1):48-59
pubmed: 23810288
Z Med Phys. 2016 Sep;26(3):209-23
pubmed: 26422577
Phys Med. 2016 Oct;32(10):1225-1237
pubmed: 27659008
J Cancer Res Ther. 2017 Apr-Jun;13(2):175-185
pubmed: 28643730
Phys Med. 2017 Oct;42:319-326
pubmed: 28662849
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Dec 19;63(1):015015
pubmed: 29256450
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Feb 13;63(4):045010
pubmed: 29350197
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 May;19(3):142-148
pubmed: 29603564
Z Med Phys. 2019 Feb;29(1):31-38
pubmed: 29631759
Phys Med. 2018 Nov;55:25-32
pubmed: 30471816
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475