{"title":"Independent secondary dose calculation for patient-specific quality assurance: Quantitative benefit of Monte–Carlo and custom beam modeling","authors":"Lone Hoffmann, Mai-Britt Linaa, Ditte Sloth Møller","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Independent secondary dose calculation (ISDC) is becoming increasingly important for patient specific quality assurance. The most widely used analytical algorithms in ISDC are becoming challenged by Monte Carlo systems, which offer a potentially higher accuracy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Quantify the benefit of Monte Carlo over analytical algorithms, and of customized beam models over generic beam models, in terms of clinically relevant parameters, action level, and workload.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A set of 100 patients across 20 case classes, all planned with Acuros XB (Siemens Healthineers) was analyzed with Mobius3D (M3D) (Siemens Healthineers) and SciMoCa (Radialogica LLC), both with custom beam models (SMCcbm) and generic beam models (SMCgen). Gamma pass rate (GPR) and mean target dose difference |ΔD| action levels were determined for various rates of QA failures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>At a workload of < 10%, the action level for M3D was GPR (3%, 3 mm) < 90% and |ΔD| > 4.5%. For SMCgen, the action level was GPR (2%, 2 mm) < 95% and |ΔD| > 1.5%. For SMCcbm, it was GPR (2%, 1 mm) < 95% and |ΔD | > 1%. The combination of both criteria reduced the workload to < 5%. SMC failures could be traced back to differences in the patient density model of Acuros XB. Some M3D failures could be traced back to the handling of tissue heterogeneities. The different performance between SMCcbm and SMCgen was due to one (of three) generic beam models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Monte Carlo allows substantially stricter acceptance criteria and is sensitive enough to capture TPS commissioning errors. Generic beam models must be validated thoroughly before being put to use in ISDC.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70265","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Independent secondary dose calculation (ISDC) is becoming increasingly important for patient specific quality assurance. The most widely used analytical algorithms in ISDC are becoming challenged by Monte Carlo systems, which offer a potentially higher accuracy.
Purpose
Quantify the benefit of Monte Carlo over analytical algorithms, and of customized beam models over generic beam models, in terms of clinically relevant parameters, action level, and workload.
Methods
A set of 100 patients across 20 case classes, all planned with Acuros XB (Siemens Healthineers) was analyzed with Mobius3D (M3D) (Siemens Healthineers) and SciMoCa (Radialogica LLC), both with custom beam models (SMCcbm) and generic beam models (SMCgen). Gamma pass rate (GPR) and mean target dose difference |ΔD| action levels were determined for various rates of QA failures.
Results
At a workload of < 10%, the action level for M3D was GPR (3%, 3 mm) < 90% and |ΔD| > 4.5%. For SMCgen, the action level was GPR (2%, 2 mm) < 95% and |ΔD| > 1.5%. For SMCcbm, it was GPR (2%, 1 mm) < 95% and |ΔD | > 1%. The combination of both criteria reduced the workload to < 5%. SMC failures could be traced back to differences in the patient density model of Acuros XB. Some M3D failures could be traced back to the handling of tissue heterogeneities. The different performance between SMCcbm and SMCgen was due to one (of three) generic beam models.
Conclusion
Monte Carlo allows substantially stricter acceptance criteria and is sensitive enough to capture TPS commissioning errors. Generic beam models must be validated thoroughly before being put to use in ISDC.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic