Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 24(10): e14063, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37469244

RESUMO

To use the open-source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is modeled in EGSnrc using the Varian-provided phase-space files. Thirteen VMAT TrueBeam treatment plans representing various anatomical regions were evaluated, comprising 37 treatment arcs. VMAT plans simulations were performed on a computing cluster, using 107 -109 particle histories per arc. Point dose differences at five reference points per arc were compared between Eclipse, MC, and the commercial software, MUCheck. MC simulation with 5 × 107 histories per arc offered good agreement with Eclipse and a reasonable average calculation time of 9-18 min per full plan. The average absolute difference was 3.0%, with only 22% of all points exceeding the 5% action limit. In contrast, the MUCheck average absolute difference was 8.4%, with 60% of points exceeding the 5% dose difference. Lung plans were particularly problematic for MUCheck, with an average absolute difference of approximately 16%. Our EGSnrc-based MC framework can be used for the MU verification of VMAT plans calculated for the Varian TrueBeam; furthermore, our phase space approach can be adapted to other treatment devices by using appropriate phase space files. The use of 5 × 107 histories consistently satisfied the 5% action limit across all plan types for the majority of points, performing significantly better than a commercial MU verification system, MUCheck. As faster processors and cloud computing facilities become even more widely available, this approach can be readily implemented in clinical settings.


Assuntos
Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada , Humanos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/métodos , Simulação por Computador , Software , Aceleradores de Partículas , Dosagem Radioterapêutica , Método de Monte Carlo , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/métodos
2.
J Appl Clin Med Phys ; 20(6): 60-69, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31127699

RESUMO

We have developed a fast and accurate in-house Monte Carlo (MC) secondary monitor unit (MU) check method, based on the EGSnrc system, for independent verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning system dose calculations, in accordance with TG-114 recommendations. For a VMAT treatment plan created for a Varian Trilogy linac, DICOM information was exported from Eclipse. An open-source platform was used to generate input files for dose calculations using the EGSnrc framework. The full VMAT plan simulation employed 107 histories, and was parallelized to run on a computer cluster. The resulting 3ddose matrices were converted to the DICOM format using CERR and imported into Eclipse. The method was evaluated using 35 clinical VMAT plans of various treatment sites. For each plan, the doses calculated with the MC approach at four three-dimensional reference points were compared to the corresponding Eclipse calculations, as well as calculations performed using the clinical software package, MUCheck. Each MC arc simulation of 107 particles required 13-25 min of total time, including processing and calculation. The average discrepancies in calculated dose values between the MC method and Eclipse were 2.03% (compared to 3.43% for MUCheck) for prostate cases, 2.45% (3.22% for MUCheck) for head and neck cases, 1.7% (5.51% for MUCheck) for brain cases, and 2.84% (5.64% for MUCheck) for miscellaneous cases. Of 276 comparisons, 201 showed greater agreement between the treatment planning system and MC vs MUCheck. The largest discrepancies between MC and MUCheck were found in regions of high dose gradients and heterogeneous densities. By parallelizing the calculations, point-dose accuracies of 2-7%, sufficient for clinical secondary checks, can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. As computer clusters and/or cloud computing become more widespread, this method will be useful in most clinical setups.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Neoplasias de Cabeça e Pescoço/radioterapia , Método de Monte Carlo , Imagens de Fantasmas , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/métodos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Aceleradores de Partículas/instrumentação , Dosagem Radioterapêutica
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA