Cargando…
Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data
To use the open‐source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is model...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37469244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14063 |
_version_ | 1785118037685305344 |
---|---|
author | Pant, Ankit Miri, Narges Bhagroo, Stephen Mathews, Joshua A. Nazareth, Daryl P. |
author_facet | Pant, Ankit Miri, Narges Bhagroo, Stephen Mathews, Joshua A. Nazareth, Daryl P. |
author_sort | Pant, Ankit |
collection | PubMed |
description | To use the open‐source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is modeled in EGSnrc using the Varian‐provided phase‐space files. Thirteen VMAT TrueBeam treatment plans representing various anatomical regions were evaluated, comprising 37 treatment arcs. VMAT plans simulations were performed on a computing cluster, using 10(7)–10(9) particle histories per arc. Point dose differences at five reference points per arc were compared between Eclipse, MC, and the commercial software, MUCheck. MC simulation with 5 × 10(7) histories per arc offered good agreement with Eclipse and a reasonable average calculation time of 9–18 min per full plan. The average absolute difference was 3.0%, with only 22% of all points exceeding the 5% action limit. In contrast, the MUCheck average absolute difference was 8.4%, with 60% of points exceeding the 5% dose difference. Lung plans were particularly problematic for MUCheck, with an average absolute difference of approximately 16%. Our EGSnrc‐based MC framework can be used for the MU verification of VMAT plans calculated for the Varian TrueBeam; furthermore, our phase space approach can be adapted to other treatment devices by using appropriate phase space files. The use of 5 × 10(7) histories consistently satisfied the 5% action limit across all plan types for the majority of points, performing significantly better than a commercial MU verification system, MUCheck. As faster processors and cloud computing facilities become even more widely available, this approach can be readily implemented in clinical settings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10562028 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105620282023-10-10 Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data Pant, Ankit Miri, Narges Bhagroo, Stephen Mathews, Joshua A. Nazareth, Daryl P. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics To use the open‐source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is modeled in EGSnrc using the Varian‐provided phase‐space files. Thirteen VMAT TrueBeam treatment plans representing various anatomical regions were evaluated, comprising 37 treatment arcs. VMAT plans simulations were performed on a computing cluster, using 10(7)–10(9) particle histories per arc. Point dose differences at five reference points per arc were compared between Eclipse, MC, and the commercial software, MUCheck. MC simulation with 5 × 10(7) histories per arc offered good agreement with Eclipse and a reasonable average calculation time of 9–18 min per full plan. The average absolute difference was 3.0%, with only 22% of all points exceeding the 5% action limit. In contrast, the MUCheck average absolute difference was 8.4%, with 60% of points exceeding the 5% dose difference. Lung plans were particularly problematic for MUCheck, with an average absolute difference of approximately 16%. Our EGSnrc‐based MC framework can be used for the MU verification of VMAT plans calculated for the Varian TrueBeam; furthermore, our phase space approach can be adapted to other treatment devices by using appropriate phase space files. The use of 5 × 10(7) histories consistently satisfied the 5% action limit across all plan types for the majority of points, performing significantly better than a commercial MU verification system, MUCheck. As faster processors and cloud computing facilities become even more widely available, this approach can be readily implemented in clinical settings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10562028/ /pubmed/37469244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14063 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Pant, Ankit Miri, Narges Bhagroo, Stephen Mathews, Joshua A. Nazareth, Daryl P. Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title | Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title_full | Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title_fullStr | Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title_full_unstemmed | Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title_short | Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data |
title_sort | monitor unit verification for varian truebeam vmat plans using monte carlo calculations and phase space data |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37469244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14063 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pantankit monitorunitverificationforvariantruebeamvmatplansusingmontecarlocalculationsandphasespacedata AT mirinarges monitorunitverificationforvariantruebeamvmatplansusingmontecarlocalculationsandphasespacedata AT bhagroostephen monitorunitverificationforvariantruebeamvmatplansusingmontecarlocalculationsandphasespacedata AT mathewsjoshuaa monitorunitverificationforvariantruebeamvmatplansusingmontecarlocalculationsandphasespacedata AT nazarethdarylp monitorunitverificationforvariantruebeamvmatplansusingmontecarlocalculationsandphasespacedata |