Cargando…

Experimental Validation of Monte Carlo Based Treatment Planning System in Bone Density Equivalent Media

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Radojcic, Djeni Smilovic, Casar, Bozidar, Rajlic, David, Kolacio, Manda Svabic, Mendez, Ignasi, Obajdin, Nevena, Debeljuh, Dea Dundara, Jurkovic, Slaven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sciendo 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585341/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32936784
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/raon-2020-0051
Descripción
Sumario: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.