Premium
SU‐E‐T‐253: Development of a GDPM Monte Carlo Based Quality Assurance Tool for Cyberknife
Author(s) -
Webster M,
Ouyang L,
Folkerts M,
Tian Z,
Jia X,
Jiang S,
Gu X
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924615
Subject(s) - cyberknife , quality assurance , monte carlo method , imaging phantom , percentage depth dose curve , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , ionization chamber , computer science , physics , mathematics , medicine , statistics , radiation therapy , radiology , ionization , ion , external quality assessment , pathology , quantum mechanics , radiosurgery
Purpose: To develop a 3D quality assurance (QA) tool for Cyberknife plans using a GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation package, gDPM. The developed QA tool will be used as a secondary check for Cyberknife treatment planning software (TPS) reported dose distributions. Methods: Phase space files of the 5, 7.5, 10, 15, and 60 mm iris cones were downloaded from IAEA phase‐space database. From the 60mm iris cone phase space file, we were able to generate raw phase space files for all other cones using a particle rejection method. The particles in the raw phase space files were binned with respect to the radial position and energy for commissioning. During the commissioning process, gDPM calculated percent depth dose and off‐center ratios which were compared to those measured in the Blue Phantom. The off‐axis data was measured with an SAD setup at depths of 15, 50, 100, 200, and 300 mm. At the commissioning stage, an optimization problem was solved to adjust the binned particles weights to minimize the difference between the calculated and measured ones. Commissioning validations will be performed by measuring point dose data of patient specific plans delivered to water phantoms. With commissioned phase space files, 3D patient‐specific dose distributions will be calculated and compared against TPS reported dose. Results: Beyond the initial buildup region, the root mean square difference between the calculated and measured percent depth dose differences was less than 0.5%. The full‐width half‐max data from the off‐axis ratio calculations was found to be within 0.1 mm of the measured data. Conclusion: Our current work showed excellent agreement between the gDPM calculated dose and the measured data for all cone sizes and types for the Cyberknife system. Implementation of a fast and accurate QA tool for patient specific plans will be feasible with this tool.