Premium
SU‐E‐T‐585: Commissioning of Electron Monte Carlo in Eclipse Treatment Planning System for TrueBeam
Author(s) -
Yang X,
Lasio G,
Zhou J,
Lin M,
Yi B,
Guerrero M
Publication year - 2014
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 - 10.1118/1.4888921
Subject(s) - truebeam , eclipse , monte carlo method , physics , beam (structure) , electron , linear particle accelerator , hypospadias , optics , medical physics , computational physics , nuclear physics , statistics , medicine , mathematics , astrophysics , surgery
Purpose: To commission electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) for TrueBeam Linacs, including the evaluation of dose calculation accuracy for small fields and oblique beams and comparison with the existing eMC model for Clinacs. Methods: Electron beam percent‐depth‐dose (PDDs) and profiles with and without applicators, as well as output factors, were measured from two Varian TrueBeam machines. Measured data were compared against the Varian TrueBeam Representative Beam Data (VTBRBD). The selected data set was transferred into Eclipse for beam configuration. Dose calculation accuracy from eMC was evaluated for open fields, small cut‐out fields, and oblique beams at different incident angles. The TrueBeam data was compared to the existing Clinac data and eMC model to evaluate the differences among Linac types. Results: Our measured data indicated that electron beam PDDs from our TrueBeam machines are well matched to those from our Varian Clinac machines, but in‐air profiles, cone factors and open‐filed output factors are significantly different. The data from our two TrueBeam machines were well represented by the VTBRBD. Variations of TrueBeam PDDs and profiles were within the 2% /2mm criteria for all energies, and the output factors for fields with and without applicators all agree within 2%. Obliquity factor for two clinically relevant applicator sizes (10×10 and 15×15 cm^2) and three oblique angles (15, 30, and 45 degree) were measured for nominal R100, R90, and R80 of each electron beam energy. Comparisons of calculations using eMC of obliquity factors and cut‐out factors versus measurements will be presented. Conclusion: eMC algorithm in Eclipse TPS can be configured using the VTBRBD. Significant differences between TrueBeam and Clinacs were found in in‐air profiles and open field output factors. The accuracy of the eMC algorithm was evaluated for a wide range of cut‐out factors and oblique incidence.