Evaluation of an electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for treatment planning

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 16; no. 3; pp. 60 - 79
• Main Authors: Chamberland, Eve, Beaulieu, Luc, Lachance, Bernard
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.05.2015; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Absorption, Radiation; Agreements; Algorithms; Atoms & subatomic particles; Charged particles; Computer Simulation; dose calculation; Dosimetry; electron beams; Electrons - therapeutic use; Head & neck cancer; Humans; Models, Statistical; Monte Carlo; Monte Carlo Method; Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Planning; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; treatment planning system
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i3.4636

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm included in a commercial treatment planning system and compare its performance against an electron pencil beam algorithm. Several tests were performed to explore the system's behavior in simple geometries and in configurations encountered in clinical practice. The first series of tests were executed in a homogeneous water phantom, where experimental measurements and eMC‐calculated dose distributions were compared for various combinations of energy and applicator. More specifically, we compared beam profiles and depth‐dose curves at different source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs) and gantry angles, by using dose difference and distance to agreement. Also, we compared output factors, we studied the effects of algorithm input parameters, which are the random number generator seed, as well as the calculation grid size, and we performed a calculation time evaluation. Three different inhomogeneous solid phantoms were built, using high‐ and low‐density materials inserts, to clinically simulate relevant heterogeneity conditions: a small air cylinder within a homogeneous phantom, a lung phantom, and a chest wall phantom. We also used an anthropomorphic phantom to perform comparison of eMC calculations to measurements. Finally, we proceeded with an evaluation of the eMC algorithm on a clinical case of nose cancer. In all mentioned cases, measurements, carried out by means of XV‐2 films, radiographic films or EBT2 Gafchromic films. were used to compare eMC calculations with dose distributions obtained from an electron pencil beam algorithm. eMC calculations in the water phantom were accurate. Discrepancies for depth‐dose curves and beam profiles were under 2.5% and 2 mm. Dose calculations with eMC for the small air cylinder and the lung phantom agreed within 2% and 4%, respectively. eMC calculations for the chest wall phantom and the anthropomorphic phantom also showed a positive agreement with the measurements. The retrospective dosimetric comparison of a clinical case, which presented scatter perturbations by air cavities, showed a difference in dose of up to 20% between pencil beam and eMC algorithms. When comparing to the pencil beam algorithm, eMC calculations are definitely more accurate at predicting large dose perturbations due to inhomogeneities. PACS numbers: 87.55.de, 87.55.kd