Monte Carlo simulation of a dynamic MLC: implementation and applications

PURPOSE: Study of behavior and influence of a multileaf collimator (MLC) on dose calculation, verification, and portal energy spectra in the case of intensity-modulated fields obtained with a step-and-shoot or a dynamic technique. METHODS: The 80-leaf MLC for the Varian Clinac 2300 C/D was implemented in a previously developed Monte Carlo (MC) based multiple source model (MSM) for a 6 MV photon beam. Using this model and the MC program GEANT, dose distributions, energy fluence maps and energy spectra at different portal planes were calculated for three different MLC applications. RESULTS: The comparison of MC-calculated dose distributions in the phantom and portal plane, with those measured with films showed an agreement within 3% and 1.5 mm for all cases studied. The deviations mainly occur in the extremes of the intensity modulation. The MC method allows to investigate, among other aspects, dose components, energy fluence maps, tongue-and-groove effects and energy spectra at portal planes. CONCLUSION: The MSM together with the implementation of the MLC is appropriate for a number of investigations in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

A multiple source model for 6 MV photon beam dose calculations using Monte Carlo

A multiple source model (MSM) for the 6 MV beam of a Varian Clinac 2300 C/D was developed by simulating radiation transport through the accelerator head for a set of square fields using the GEANT Monte Carlo (MC) code. The corresponding phase space (PS) data enabled the characterization of 12 sources representing the main components of the beam defining system. By parametrizing the source characteristics and by evaluating the dependence of the parameters on field size, it was possible to extend the validity of the model to arbitrary rectangular fields which include the central 3 x 3 cm2 field without additional precalculated PS data. Finally, a sampling procedure was developed in order to reproduce the PS data. To validate the MSM, the fluence, energy fluence and mean energy distributions determined from the original and the reproduced PS data were compared and showed very good agreement. In addition, the MC calculated primary energy spectrum was verified by an energy spectrum derived from transmission measurements. Comparisons of MC calculated depth dose curves and profiles, using original and PS data reproduced by the MSM, agree within 1% and 1 mm. Deviations from measured dose distributions are within 1.5% and 1 mm. However, the real beam leads to some larger deviations outside the geometrical beam area for large fields. Calculated output factors in 10 cm water depth agree within 1.5% with experimentally determined data. In conclusion, the MSM produces accurate PS data for MC photon dose calculations for the rectangular fields specified.

Simple beam models for Monte Carlo photon beam dose calculations in radiotherapy

Monte Carlo (code GEANT) produced 6 and 15 MV phase space (PS) data were used to define several simple photon beam models. For creating the PS data the energy of starting electrons hitting the target was tuned to get correct depth dose data compared to measurements. The modeling process used the full PS information within the geometrical boundaries of the beam including all scattered radiation of the accelerator head. Scattered radiation outside the boundaries was neglected. Photons and electrons were assumed to be radiated from point sources. Four different models were investigated which involved different ways to determine the energies and locations of beam particles in the output plane. Depth dose curves, profiles, and relative output factors were calculated with these models for six field sizes from 5x5 to 40x40cm2 and compared to measurements. Model 1 uses a photon energy spectrum independent of location in the PS plane and a constant photon fluence in this plane. Model 2 takes into account the spatial particle fluence distribution in the PS plane. A constant fluence is used again in model 3, but the photon energy spectrum depends upon the off axis position. Model 4, finally uses the spatial particle fluence distribution and off axis dependent photon energy spectra in the PS plane. Depth dose curves and profiles for field sizes up to 10x10cm2 were not model sensitive. Good agreement between measured and calculated depth dose curves and profiles for all field sizes was reached for model 4. However, increasing deviations were found for increasing field sizes for models 1-3. Large deviations resulted for the profiles of models 2 and 3. This is due to the fact that these models overestimate and underestimate the energy fluence at large off axis distances. Relative output factors consistent with measurements resulted only for model 4.

Calibration of a portal imaging device for high-precision dosimetry: a Monte Carlo study

Today electronic portal imaging devices (EPID's) are used primarily to verify patient positioning. They have, however, also the potential as 2D-dosimeters and could be used as such for transit dosimetry or dose reconstruction. It has been proven that such devices, especially liquid filled ionization chambers, have a stable dose response relationship which can be described in terms of the physical properties of the EPID and the pulsed linac radiation. For absolute dosimetry however, an accurate method of calibration to an absolute dose is needed. In this work, we concentrate on calibration against dose in a homogeneous water phantom. Using a Monte Carlo model of the detector we calculated dose spread kernels in units of absolute dose per incident energy fluence and compared them to calculated dose spread kernels in water at different depths. The energy of the incident pencil beams varied between 0.5 and 18 MeV. At the depth of dose maximum in water for a 6 MV beam (1.5 cm) and for a 18 MV beam (3.0 cm) we observed large absolute differences between water and detector dose above an incident energy of 4 MeV but only small relative differences in the most frequent energy range of the beam energy spectra. It is shown that for a 6 MV beam the absolute reference dose measured at 1.5 cm water depth differs from the absolute detector dose by 3.8%. At depth 1.2 cm in water, however, the relative dose differences are almost constant between 2 and 6 MeV. The effects of changes in the energy spectrum of the beam on the dose responses in water and in the detector are also investigated. We show that differences larger than 2% can occur for different beam qualities of the incident photon beam behind water slabs of different thicknesses. It is therefore concluded that for high-precision dosimetry such effects have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the precise information about the dose response of the detector provided in this Monte Carlo study forms the basis of extracting directly the basic radiometric quantities photon fluence and photon energy fluence from the detector's signal using a deconvolution algorithm. The results are therefore promising for future application in absolute transit dosimetry and absolute dose reconstruction.

BENCHMARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INDEPENDENT MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT TOOL FOR CLINICAL TRIALS

Introduction Commercial treatment planning systems employ a variety of dose calculation algorithms to plan and predict the dose distributions a patient receives during external beam radiation therapy. Traditionally, the Radiological Physics Center has relied on measurements to assure that institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute sponsored clinical trials administer radiation in doses that are clinically comparable to those of other participating institutions. To complement the effort of the RPC, an independent dose calculation tool needs to be developed that will enable a generic method to determine patient dose distributions in three dimensions and to perform retrospective analysis of radiation delivered to patients who enrolled in past clinical trials. Methods A multi-source model representing output for Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams was developed and evaluated. The Monte Carlo algorithm, know as the Dose Planning Method (DPM), was used to perform the dose calculations. The dose calculations were compared to measurements made in a water phantom and in anthropomorphic phantoms. Intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques were used with the anthropomorphic phantoms. Finally, past patient treatment plans were selected and recalculated using DPM and contrasted against a commercial dose calculation algorithm. Results The multi-source model was validated for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. The benchmark evaluations demonstrated the ability of the model to accurately calculate dose for the Varian 6 MV and the Varian 10 MV source models. The patient calculations proved that the model was reproducible in determining dose under similar conditions described by the benchmark tests. Conclusions The dose calculation tool that relied on a multi-source model approach and used the DPM code to calculate dose was developed, validated, and benchmarked for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. Several patient dose distributions were contrasted against a commercial algorithm to provide a proof of principal to use as an application in monitoring clinical trial activity.

Why Monte Carlo Simulations are Inferences and not Experiments

Monte Carlo simulations arrive at their results by introducing randomness, sometimes derived from a physical randomizing device. Nonetheless, we argue, they open no new epistemic channels beyond that already employed by traditional simulations: the inference by ordinary argumentation of conclusions from assumptions built into the simulations. We show that Monte Carlo simulations cannot produce knowledge other than by inference, and that they resemble other computer simulations in the manner in which they derive their conclusions. Simple examples of Monte Carlo simulations are analysed to identify the underlying inferences.

More than just Good Luck. How to Explain the Success of Monte Carlo Simulations

Monte Carlo simulation is a powerful method in many natural and social sciences. But what sort of method is it? And where does its power come from? Are Monte Carlo simulations experiments, theories or something else? The aim of this talk is to answer these questions and to explain the power of Monte Carlo simulations. I provide a classification of Monte Carlo techniques and defend the claim that Monte Carlo simulation is a sort of inference.

Saddlepoint approximations to sensitivities of tail probabilities of random sums and comparisons with Monte Carlo estimators

This article proposes computing sensitivities of upper tail probabilities of random sums by the saddlepoint approximation. The considered sensitivity is the derivative of the upper tail probability with respect to the parameter of the summation index distribution. Random sums with Poisson or Geometric distributed summation indices and Gamma or Weibull distributed summands are considered. The score method with importance sampling is considered as an alternative approximation. Numerical studies show that the saddlepoint approximation and the method of score with importance sampling are very accurate. But the saddlepoint approximation is substantially faster than the score method with importance sampling. Thus, the suggested saddlepoint approximation can be conveniently used in various scientific problems.

A critical evaluation of secondary cancer risk models applied to Monte Carlo dose distributions of 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional conformal and hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer

The comparison of radiotherapy techniques regarding secondary cancer risk has yielded contradictory results possibly stemming from the many different approaches used to estimate risk. The purpose of this study was to make a comprehensive evaluation of different available risk models applied to detailed whole-body dose distributions computed by Monte Carlo for various breast radiotherapy techniques including conventional open tangents, 3D conformal wedged tangents and hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). First, organ-specific linear risk models developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII committee were applied to mean doses for remote organs only and all solid organs. Then, different general non-linear risk models were applied to the whole body dose distribution. Finally, organ-specific non-linear risk models for the lung and breast were used to assess the secondary cancer risk for these two specific organs. A total of 32 different calculated absolute risks resulted in a broad range of values (between 0.1% and 48.5%) underlying the large uncertainties in absolute risk calculation. The ratio of risk between two techniques has often been proposed as a more robust assessment of risk than the absolute risk. We found that the ratio of risk between two techniques could also vary substantially considering the different approaches to risk estimation. Sometimes the ratio of risk between two techniques would range between values smaller and larger than one, which then translates into inconsistent results on the potential higher risk of one technique compared to another. We found however that the hybrid IMRT technique resulted in a systematic reduction of risk compared to the other techniques investigated even though the magnitude of this reduction varied substantially with the different approaches investigated. Based on the epidemiological data available, a reasonable approach to risk estimation would be to use organ-specific non-linear risk models applied to the dose distributions of organs within or near the treatment fields (lungs and contralateral breast in the case of breast radiotherapy) as the majority of radiation-induced secondary cancers are found in the beam-bordering regions.