Premium
SU‐F‐19A‐10: Recalculation and Reporting Clinical HDR 192‐Ir Head and Neck Dose Distributions Using Model Based Dose Calculation
Author(s) -
Carlsson Tedgren A,
Persson M,
Nilsson J
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 - 10.1118/1.4889036
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , monte carlo method , nuclear medicine , stopping power , dosimetry , photon , computational physics , physics , head and neck , head and neck cancer , mathematics , radiation therapy , optics , statistics , medicine , radiology , surgery , detector
Purpose: To retrospectively re‐calculate dose distributions for selected head and neck cancer patients, earlier treated with HDR 192Ir brachytherapy, using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and compare results to distributions from the planning system derived using TG43 formalism. To study differences between dose to medium (as obtained with the MC code) and dose to water in medium as obtained through (1) ratios of stopping powers and (2) ratios of mass energy absorption coefficients between water and medium. Methods: The MC code Algebra was used to calculate dose distributions according to earlier actual treatment plans using anonymized plan data and CT images in DICOM format. Ratios of stopping power and mass energy absorption coefficients for water with various media obtained from 192‐Ir spectra were used in toggling between dose to water and dose to media. Results: Differences between initial planned TG43 dose distributions and the doses to media calculated by MC are insignificant in the target volume. Differences are moderate (within 4–5 % at distances of 3–4 cm) but increase with distance and are most notable in bone and at the patient surface. Differences between dose to water and dose to medium are within 1‐2% when using mass energy absorption coefficients to toggle between the two quantities but increase to above 10% for bone using stopping power ratios. Conclusion: MC predicts target doses for head and neck cancer patients in close agreement with TG43. MC yields improved dose estimations outside the target where a larger fraction of dose is from scattered photons. It is important with awareness and a clear reporting of absorbed dose values in using model based algorithms. Differences in bone media can exceed 10% depending on how dose to water in medium is defined.