Open AccessExperimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media
Author(s) -
Djeni Smilovic Radojcic,
Božidar Casar,
David Rajlić,
Manda Švabić Kolacio,
Ignasi Méndez,
Nevena Obajdin,
Dea Dundara Debeljuh,
Slaven Jurković
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
radiology and oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.707
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1581-3207
pISSN - 1318-2099
DOI - 10.2478/raon-2020-0051
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , monte carlo method , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , absorbed dose , water equivalent , photon , focus (optics) , beam (structure) , medicine , medical physics , computational physics , biomedical engineering , dosimetry , physics , mathematics , optics , radiology , statistics , radiation therapy , meteorology , snow
Introduction Advanced, Monte Carlo (MC) based dose calculation algorithms, determine absorbed dose as dose to medium-in-medium ( D m,m ) or dose to water-in-medium ( D w,m ). Some earlier studies identified the differences in the absorbed doses related to the calculation mode, especially in the bone density equivalent (BDE) media. Since the calculation algorithms built in the treatment planning systems (TPS) should be dosimetrically verified before their use, we analyzed dose differences between two calculation modes for the Elekta Monaco TPS. We compared them with experimentally determined values, aiming to define a supplement to the existing TPS verification methodology. Materials and methods In our study, we used a 6 MV photon beam from a linear accelerator. To evaluate the accuracy of the TPS calculation approaches, measurements with a Farmer type chamber in a semi-anthropomorphic phantom were compared to those obtained by two calculation options. The comparison was made for three parts of the phantom having different densities, with a focus on the BDE part. Results Measured and calculated doses were in agreement for water and lung equivalent density materials, regardless of the calculation mode. However, in the BDE part of the phantom, mean dose differences between the calculation options ranged from 5.7 to 8.3%, depending on the method used. In the BDE part of the phantom, neither of the two calculation options were consistent with experimentally determined absorbed doses. Conclusions Based on our findings, we proposed a supplement to the current methodology for the verification of commercial MC based TPS by performing additional measurements in BDE material.