Premium
SU‐E‐T‐466: Implementation of An Extension Module for Dose Response Models in the TOPAS Monte Carlo Toolkit
Author(s) -
RamosMendez J,
Perl J,
Schuemann J,
Shin J,
Paganetti H,
Faddegon B
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 - 10.1118/1.4924828
Subject(s) - pinnacle , monte carlo method , benchmark (surveying) , poisson distribution , proton therapy , nuclear medicine , population , physics , computer science , computational science , radiation treatment planning , proton , mathematics , statistics , medicine , radiation therapy , nuclear physics , environmental health , geodesy , geography
Purpose: To develop and verify an extension to TOPAS for calculation of dose response models (TCP/NTCP). TOPAS wraps and extends Geant4. Methods: The TOPAS DICOM interface was extended to include structure contours, for subsequent calculation of DVH's and TCP/NTCP. The following dose response models were implemented: Lyman‐Kutcher‐Burman (LKB), critical element (CE), population based critical volume (CV), parallel‐serials, a sigmoid‐based model of Niemierko for NTCP and TCP, and a Poisson‐based model for TCP. For verification, results for the parallel‐serial and Poisson models, with 6 MV x‐ray dose distributions calculated with TOPAS and Pinnacle v9.2, were compared to data from the benchmark configuration of the AAPM Task Group 166 (TG166). We provide a benchmark configuration suitable for proton therapy along with results for the implementation of the Niemierko, CV and CE models. Results: The maximum difference in DVH calculated with Pinnacle and TOPAS was 2%. Differences between TG166 data and Monte Carlo calculations of up to 4.2%±6.1% were found for the parallel‐serial model and up to 1.0%±0.7% for the Poisson model (including the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge of the point spacing in TG166). For CE, CV and Niemierko models, the discrepancies between the Pinnacle and TOPAS results are 74.5%, 34.8% and 52.1% when using 29.7 cGy point spacing, the differences being highly sensitive to dose spacing. On the other hand, with our proposed benchmark configuration, the largest differences were 12.05%±0.38%, 3.74%±1.6%, 1.57%±4.9% and 1.97%±4.6% for the CE, CV, Niemierko and LKB models, respectively. Conclusion: Several dose response models were successfully implemented with the extension module. Reference data was calculated for future benchmarking. Dose response calculated for the different models varied much more widely for the TG166 benchmark than for the proposed benchmark, which had much lower sensitivity to the choice of DVH dose points. This work was supported by National Cancer Institute Grant R01CA140735