Monte Carlo source model for photon beam radiotherapy: photon source characteristics

A major barrier to widespread clinical implementation of Monte Carlo dose calculation is the difficulty in characterizing the radiation source within a generalized source model. This work aims to develop a generalized three-component source model (target, primary collimator, flattening filter) for 6- and 18-MV photon beams that match full phase-space data (PSD). Subsource by subsource comparison of dose distributions, using either source PSD or the source model as input, allows accurate source characterization and has the potential to ease the commissioning procedure, since it is possible to obtain information about which subsource needs to be tuned. This source model is unique in that, compared to previous source models, it retains additional correlations among PS variables, which improves accuracy at nonstandard source-to-surface distances (SSDs). In our study, three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations were performed for SSDs ranging from 50 to 200 cm and for field sizes from 1 x 1 to 30 x 30 cm2 as well as a 10 x 10 cm2 field 5 cm off axis in each direction. The 3D dose distributions, using either full PSD or the source model as input, were compared in terms of dose-difference and distance-to-agreement. With this model, over 99% of the voxels agreed within +/-1% or 1 mm for the target, within 2% or 2 mm for the primary collimator, and within +/-2.5% or 2 mm for the flattening filter in all cases studied. For the dose distributions, 99% of the dose voxels agreed within 1% or 1 mm when the combined source model-including a charged particle source and the full PSD as input-was used. The accurate and general characterization of each photon source and knowledge of the subsource dose distributions should facilitate source model commissioning procedures by allowing scaling the histogram distributions representing the subsources to be tuned.

Monte Carlo simulation of a dynamic MLC based on a multiple source model

Detailed knowledge of the characteristics of the radiation field shaped by a multileaf collimator (MLC) is essential in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). A previously developed multiple source model (MSM) for a 6 MV beam was extended to a 15 MV beam and supplemented with an accurate model of an 80-leaf dynamic MLC. Using the supplemented MSM and the MC code GEANT, lateral dose distributions were calculated in a water phantom and a portal water phantom. A field which is normally used for the validation of the step and shoot technique and a field from a realistic IMRT treatment plan delivered with dynamic MLC are investigated. To assess possible spectral changes caused by the modulation of beam intensity by an MLC, the energy spectra in five portal planes were calculated for moving slits of different widths. The extension of the MSM to 15 MV was validated by analysing energy fluences, depth doses and dose profiles. In addition, the MC-calculated primary energy spectrum was verified with an energy spectrum which was reconstructed from transmission measurements. MC-calculated dose profiles using the MSM for the step and shoot case and for the dynamic MLC case are in very good agreement with the measured data from film dosimetry. The investigation of a 13 cm wide field shows an increase in mean photon energy of up to 16% for the 0.25 cm slit compared to the open beam for 6 MV and of up to 6% for 15 MV, respectively. In conclusion, the MSM supplemented with the dynamic MLC has proven to be a powerful tool for investigational and benchmarking purposes or even for dose calculations in 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.

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.

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.

Monte Carlo based beam model using a photon MLC for modulated electron radiotherapy

PURPOSE Modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) promises sparing of organs at risk for certain tumor sites. Any implementation of MERT treatment planning requires an accurate beam model. The aim of this work is the development of a beam model which reconstructs electron fields shaped using the Millennium photon multileaf collimator (MLC) (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) for a Varian linear accelerator (linac). METHODS This beam model is divided into an analytical part (two photon and two electron sources) and a Monte Carlo (MC) transport through the MLC. For dose calculation purposes the beam model has been coupled with a macro MC dose calculation algorithm. The commissioning process requires a set of measurements and precalculated MC input. The beam model has been commissioned at a source to surface distance of 70 cm for a Clinac 23EX (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) and a TrueBeam linac (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). For validation purposes, measured and calculated depth dose curves and dose profiles are compared for four different MLC shaped electron fields and all available energies. Furthermore, a measured two-dimensional dose distribution for patched segments consisting of three 18 MeV segments, three 12 MeV segments, and a 9 MeV segment is compared with corresponding dose calculations. Finally, measured and calculated two-dimensional dose distributions are compared for a circular segment encompassed with a C-shaped segment. RESULTS For 15 × 34, 5 × 5, and 2 × 2 cm(2) fields differences between water phantom measurements and calculations using the beam model coupled with the macro MC dose calculation algorithm are generally within 2% of the maximal dose value or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for all electron beam energies. For a more complex MLC pattern, differences between measurements and calculations are generally within 3% of the maximal dose value or 3 mm DTA for all electron beam energies. For the two-dimensional dose comparisons, the differences between calculations and measurements are generally within 2% of the maximal dose value or 2 mm DTA. CONCLUSIONS The results of the dose comparisons suggest that the developed beam model is suitable to accurately reconstruct photon MLC shaped electron beams for a Clinac 23EX and a TrueBeam linac. Hence, in future work the beam model will be utilized to investigate the possibilities of MERT using the photon MLC to shape electron beams.

Monte Carlo modeling of polarized light propagation: Stokes vs Jones - Part I

This bipartite comparative study aims at inspecting the similarities and differences between the Jones and Stokes–Mueller formalisms when modeling polarized light propagation with numerical simulations of the Monte Carlo type. In this first part, we review the theoretical concepts that concern light propagation and detection with both pure and partially/totally unpolarized states. The latter case involving fluctuations, or “depolarizing effects,” is of special interest here: Jones and Stokes–Mueller are equally apt to model such effects and are expected to yield identical results. In a second, ensuing paper, empirical evidence is provided by means of numerical experiments, using both formalisms.

Monte Carlo modeling of polarized light propagation: Stokes vs Jones - Part II

In this second part of our comparative study inspecting the (dis)similarities between “Stokes” and “Jones,” we present simulation results yielded by two independent Monte Carlo programs: (i) one developed in Bern with the Jones formalism and (ii) the other implemented in Ulm with the Stokes notation. The simulated polarimetric experiments involve suspensions of polystyrene spheres with varying size. Reflection and refraction at the sample/air interfaces are also considered. Both programs yield identical results when propagating pure polarization states, yet, with unpolarized illumination, second order statistical differences appear, thereby highlighting the pre-averaged nature of the Stokes parameters. This study serves as a validation for both programs and clarifies the misleading belief according to which “Jones cannot treat depolarizing effects.”