Three-dimensional electron beam dose calculations

The MDAH pencil-beam algorithm developed by Hogstrom et al (1981) has been widely used in clinics for electron beam dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning. The primary objective of this research was to address several deficiencies of that algorithm and to develop an enhanced version. Two enhancements have been incorporated into the pencil-beam algorithm; one models fluence rather than planar fluence, and the other models the bremsstrahlung dose using measured beam data. Comparisons of the resulting calculated dose distributions with measured dose distributions for several test phantoms have been made. From these results it is concluded (1) that the fluence-based algorithm is more accurate to use for the dose calculation in an inhomogeneous slab phantom, and (2) the fluence-based calculation provides only a limited improvement to the accuracy the calculated dose in the region just downstream of the lateral edge of an inhomogeneity. The source of the latter inaccuracy is believed primarily due to assumptions made in the pencil beam's modeling of the complex phantom or patient geometry.^ A pencil-beam redefinition model was developed for the calculation of electron beam dose distributions in three dimensions. The primary aim of this redefinition model was to solve the dosimetry problem presented by deep inhomogeneities, which was the major deficiency of the enhanced version of the MDAH pencil-beam algorithm. The pencil-beam redefinition model is based on the theory of electron transport by redefining the pencil beams at each layer of the medium. The unique approach of this model is that all the physical parameters of a given pencil beam are characterized for multiple energy bins. Comparisons of the calculated dose distributions with measured dose distributions for a homogeneous water phantom and for phantoms with deep inhomogeneities have been made. From these results it is concluded that the redefinition algorithm is superior to the conventional, fluence-based, pencil-beam algorithm, especially in predicting the dose distribution downstream of a local inhomogeneity. The accuracy of this algorithm appears sufficient for clinical use, and the algorithm is structured for future expansion of the physical model if required for site specific treatment planning problems. ^

Verification of intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy using Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry

The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive IMSRT QA procedure that examined, using EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations, each step in the treatment planning and delivery process. These steps included verification of the field shaping, treatment planning system (RTPS) dose calculations, and patient dose delivery. Verification of each step in the treatment process is assumed to result in correct dose delivery to the patient. ^ The accelerator MC model was verified against commissioning data for field sizes from 0.8 × 0.8 cm 2 to 10 × 10 cm 2. Depth doses were within 2% local percent difference (LPD) in low gradient regions and 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) in high gradient regions. Lateral profiles were within 2% LPD in low gradient regions and 1 mm DTA in high gradient regions. Calculated output factors were within 1% of measurement for field sizes ≥1 × 1 cm2. ^ The measured and calculated pretreatment EPID dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Pretreatment field verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The RTPS and Monte Carlo phantom dose calculations were compared using 5% LPD, 2 mm DTA, or 2% of the maximum dose with ≥95% of compared points required passing for successful verification. RTPS calculation verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The measured and calculated EPID exit dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Exit dose verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ Each of the processes above verified an individual step in the treatment planning and delivery process. The combination of these verification steps ensures accurate treatment delivery to the patient. This work shows that Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry can be used to quantitatively verify IMSRT treatments resulting in improved patient care and, potentially, improved clinical outcome. ^

Monte Carlo and analytical dose calculations for ocular proton therapy

Uveal melanoma is a rare but life-threatening form of ocular cancer. Contemporary treatment techniques include proton therapy, which enables conservation of the eye and its useful vision. Dose to the proximal structures is widely believed to play a role in treatment side effects, therefore, reliable dose estimates are required for properly evaluating the therapeutic value and complication risk of treatment plans. Unfortunately, current simplistic dose calculation algorithms can result in errors of up to 30% in the proximal region. In addition, they lack predictive methods for absolute dose per monitor unit (D/MU) values. ^ To facilitate more accurate dose predictions, a Monte Carlo model of an ocular proton nozzle was created and benchmarked against measured dose profiles to within ±3% or ±0.5 mm and D/MU values to within ±3%. The benchmarked Monte Carlo model was used to develop and validate a new broad beam dose algorithm that included the influence of edgescattered protons on the cross-field intensity profile, the effect of energy straggling in the distal portion of poly-energetic beams, and the proton fluence loss as a function of residual range. Generally, the analytical algorithm predicted relative dose distributions that were within ±3% or ±0.5 mm and absolute D/MU values that were within ±3% of Monte Carlo calculations. Slightly larger dose differences were observed at depths less than 7 mm, an effect attributed to the dose contributions of edge-scattered protons. Additional comparisons of Monte Carlo and broad beam dose predictions were made in a detailed eye model developed in this work, with generally similar findings. ^ Monte Carlo was shown to be an excellent predictor of the measured dose profiles and D/MU values and a valuable tool for developing and validating a broad beam dose algorithm for ocular proton therapy. The more detailed physics modeling by the Monte Carlo and broad beam dose algorithms represent an improvement in the accuracy of relative dose predictions over current techniques, and they provide absolute dose predictions. It is anticipated these improvements can be used to develop treatment strategies that reduce the incidence or severity of treatment complications by sparing normal tissue. ^

Pencil -beam redefinition algorithm dose calculations for electron therapy treatment planning

The electron pencil-beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) of Shiu and Hogstrom has been developed for use in radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP). Earlier studies of Boyd and Hogstrom showed that the PBRA lacked an adequate incident beam model, that PBRA might require improved electron physics, and that no data existed which allowed adequate assessment of the PBRA-calculated dose accuracy in a heterogeneous medium such as one presented by patient anatomy. The hypothesis of this research was that by addressing the above issues the PBRA-calculated dose would be accurate to within 4% or 2 mm in regions of high dose gradients. A secondary electron source was added to the PBRA to account for collimation-scattered electrons in the incident beam. Parameters of the dual-source model were determined from a minimal data set to allow ease of beam commissioning. Comparisons with measured data showed 3% or better dose accuracy in water within the field for cases where 4% accuracy was not previously achievable. A measured data set was developed that allowed an evaluation of PBRA in regions distal to localized heterogeneities. Geometries in the data set included irregular surfaces and high- and low-density internal heterogeneities. The data was estimated to have 1% precision and 2% agreement with accurate, benchmarked Monte Carlo (MC) code. PBRA electron transport was enhanced by modeling local pencil beam divergence. This required fundamental changes to the mathematics of electron transport (divPBRA). Evaluation of divPBRA with the measured data set showed marginal improvement in dose accuracy when compared to PBRA; however, 4% or 2mm accuracy was not achieved by either PBRA version for all data points. Finally, PBRA was evaluated clinically by comparing PBRA- and MC-calculated dose distributions using site-specific patient RTP data. Results show PBRA did not agree with MC to within 4% or 2mm in a small fraction (<3%) of the irradiated volume. Although the hypothesis of the research was shown to be false, the minor dose inaccuracies should have little or no impact on RTP decisions or patient outcome. Therefore, given ease of beam commissioning, documentation of accuracy, and calculational speed, the PBRA should be considered a practical tool for clinical use. ^