Premium
SU‐GG‐T‐332: Monte Carlo Collimator Transport Methods for Photon Treatment Planning
Author(s) -
Fix MK,
Schmidhalter D,
Frei D,
Volken W,
Manser P
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2962084
Subject(s) - monte carlo method , collimator , imaging phantom , attenuation , physics , photon , dosimetry , collimated light , computational physics , beam (structure) , radiation treatment planning , monte carlo method for photon transport , fluence , nuclear medicine , optics , mathematics , hybrid monte carlo , radiation therapy , statistics , medicine , laser , markov chain monte carlo
Purpose: Monte Carlo (MC) based investigation of the impact of different radiation transport methods in collimators on beam characteristics, dose distributions and efficiency. Method and Materials: Within the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP) — a GUI‐based framework for photon MC treatment planning — different MC methods are available for the radiation transport through the collimators (secondary jaws and MLC): EGSnrc, VMC++ and Pin (an in‐house developed MC code). Additional MC methods were implemented in order to provide different complexity levels for the MC simulation: Considering the collimators as totally absorbing, considering attenuation only, considering first order or all Compton scatter. Furthermore, either a simple or an exact geometry can be selected for the absorbing or attenuation method. Phase spaces above and dose distributions in a water phantom are analyzed for artificial and clinical treatment fields using 6 and 15 MV beams. Results: For all MC methods, differences in the radial mean energy and radial energy fluence are within 1% inside the geometric field. Below the collimators the energy fluence is underestimated for non‐full MC transport methods ranging from 5% for all Compton to 100% for absorbing. Gamma analysis using EGSnrc calculated doses as reference shows that the percentage of voxels fulfilling a 1%/1mm‐criterion decreases from 99% when using VMC++ to 80% (non‐IMRT) and 40% (IMRT) when the absorbing method in a simple geometry is used. However, compared with EGSnrc calculations, the gain in efficiency is a factor of 10 for VMC++ and 90 for the absorbing method. Conclusion: The results of this investigation suggest that it might be suitable to use a simple transport technique in the initial treatment planning process and use more accurate transport methods towards the end of the planning process accepting longer calculation time. Conflict of Interest: This work was supported in part by Varian Medical Systems.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom