Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low- and high-density heterogeneities.

The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric meth-ods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a 30 × 30 × 30 cm3 solid-water slab that had an air-gap of 20× 2.5 × 2.35 cm3. The third phantom consisted of 30 × 30 × 5 cm3 solid water slabs, two 30 × 30 × 5 cm3 slabs of lung, and one 30 × 30 × 1 cm3 solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of +4.4% to -12.8%. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within ~ 2.5%, except for the first cen-timeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high-density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by -3.1% and ~2% for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes.

IEC accelerator beam coordinate transformations for clinical Monte Carlo simulation from a phase space or full BEAMnrc particle source.

Monte Carlo simulation of clinical treatment plans require, in general, a coordinate transformation to describe the incident radiation field orientation on a patient phantom coordinate system. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has defined an accelerator coordinate system along with positive directions for gantry, couch and collimator rotations. In order to describe the incident beam's orientation with respect to the patient's coordinate system, DOSXYZnrc simulations often require transformation of the accelerator's gantry, couch and collimator angles to describe the incident beam. Similarly, versions of the voxelized Monte Carlo code (VMC(++)) require non-trivial transformation of the accelerator's gantry, couch and collimator angles to standard Euler angles α, ß, γ, to describe an incident phase space source orientation with respect to the patient's coordinate system. The transformations, required by each of these Monte Carlo codes to transport phase spaces through a phantom, have been derived with a rotation operator approach. The transformations have been tested and verified against the Eclipse treatment planning system.

Radiosurgery for brain metastases at the Royal Adelaide Hospital: are we treating the right patients?

Although non-randomized data strongly suggest improved outcome from radiosurgery (RS) for brain metastases relative to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone, selection factors account for much of the observed differences. This retrospective review of the 16 brain metastases patients treated so far with RS at the Royal Adelaide Hospital confirms a median survival of 10.1 months, consistent with recent multi-institutional pooled results and significantly longer than the median survival of 3-6 months typically reported for WBRT alone. The emerging randomized trials comparing surgery, RS and WBRT for brain metastases are reviewed in the context of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Recursive Partitioning Analysis prognostic Class concept in order to assess whether we are using this resource intensive technique to treat the 'right' patients. We conclude that it is reasonable to continue our current policy of considering RS primarily for patients of good performance status with solitary brain metastases. We have a flexible approach to adjuvant WBRT which appears to decrease brain relapse, but not improve survival.