Guus B. Spenkelink, Sophie C. Huijskens, Jaap D. Zindler, Marc de Goede, Wilhelmus J. van der Star, Jaap van Egmond, Anna L. Petoukhova
{"title":"蒙特卡洛和塌缩锥体剂量算法在小场地和临床治疗计划中的比较评估和 QA 测量阵列验证","authors":"Guus B. Spenkelink, Sophie C. Huijskens, Jaap D. Zindler, Marc de Goede, Wilhelmus J. van der Star, Jaap van Egmond, Anna L. Petoukhova","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Many studies have demonstrated superior performance of Monte Carlo (MC) over type B algorithms in heterogeneous structures. However, even in homogeneous media, MC dose simulations should outperform type B algorithms in situations of electronic disequilibrium, such as small and highly modulated fields.</p>\n \n <p>Our study compares MC and Collapsed Cone (CC) dose algorithms in RayStation 12A. Under consideration are 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams, relevant for VMAT plans such as head-and-neck and stereotactic lung treatments with heterogeneities, as well as plans for multiple brain metastases in one isocenter, involving highly modulated small fields. We aim to investigate collimator angle dependence of small fields and performance differences between different combinations of ArcCHECK configuration and dose algorithm.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Several verification tests were performed, ranging from simple rectangular fields to highly modulated clinical plans. To evaluate and compare the performance of the models, the agreements between calculation and measurement are compared between MC and CC. Measurements include water tank measurements for test fields, ArcCHECK measurements for test fields and VMAT plans, and film dosimetry for small fields.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In very small or narrow fields, our measurements reveal a strong dependency of dose output to collimator angle for VersaHD with Agility MLC, reproduced by both dose algorithms.</p>\n \n <p>ArcCHECK results highlight a suboptimal agreement between measurements and MC calculations for simple rectangular fields when using inhomogeneous ArcCHECK images. Therefore, we advocate for the use of homogeneous phantom images, particularly for static fields, in ArcCHECK verification with MC.</p>\n \n <p>MC might offer performance benefits for more modulated treatment fields. In ArcCHECK results for clinical plans, MC performed comparable to CC for 6 MV. For 6 MV FFF and the preferred homogeneous phantom image, MC resulted in consistently better results (13%–64% lower mean gamma index) compared to CC.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"25 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14522","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative assessment and QA measurement array validation of Monte Carlo and Collapsed Cone dose algorithms for small fields and clinical treatment plans\",\"authors\":\"Guus B. Spenkelink, Sophie C. Huijskens, Jaap D. Zindler, Marc de Goede, Wilhelmus J. van der Star, Jaap van Egmond, Anna L. Petoukhova\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Many studies have demonstrated superior performance of Monte Carlo (MC) over type B algorithms in heterogeneous structures. However, even in homogeneous media, MC dose simulations should outperform type B algorithms in situations of electronic disequilibrium, such as small and highly modulated fields.</p>\\n \\n <p>Our study compares MC and Collapsed Cone (CC) dose algorithms in RayStation 12A. Under consideration are 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams, relevant for VMAT plans such as head-and-neck and stereotactic lung treatments with heterogeneities, as well as plans for multiple brain metastases in one isocenter, involving highly modulated small fields. We aim to investigate collimator angle dependence of small fields and performance differences between different combinations of ArcCHECK configuration and dose algorithm.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Several verification tests were performed, ranging from simple rectangular fields to highly modulated clinical plans. To evaluate and compare the performance of the models, the agreements between calculation and measurement are compared between MC and CC. Measurements include water tank measurements for test fields, ArcCHECK measurements for test fields and VMAT plans, and film dosimetry for small fields.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results and conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In very small or narrow fields, our measurements reveal a strong dependency of dose output to collimator angle for VersaHD with Agility MLC, reproduced by both dose algorithms.</p>\\n \\n <p>ArcCHECK results highlight a suboptimal agreement between measurements and MC calculations for simple rectangular fields when using inhomogeneous ArcCHECK images. Therefore, we advocate for the use of homogeneous phantom images, particularly for static fields, in ArcCHECK verification with MC.</p>\\n \\n <p>MC might offer performance benefits for more modulated treatment fields. In ArcCHECK results for clinical plans, MC performed comparable to CC for 6 MV. For 6 MV FFF and the preferred homogeneous phantom image, MC resulted in consistently better results (13%–64% lower mean gamma index) compared to CC.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"25 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14522\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14522\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14522","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
摘要
目的许多研究表明,在异质结构中,蒙特卡洛(MC)算法的性能优于 B 类算法。然而,即使在均质介质中,MC 剂量模拟在电子不平衡的情况下也应优于 B 类算法,如小的高调制场。我们的研究比较了 RayStation 12A 中的 MC 和塌缩锥体(CC)剂量算法。我们考虑的是 6 MV 和 6 MV 无扁平化滤波器(FFF)光子束,适用于 VMAT 计划,如具有异质性的头颈部和立体定向肺部治疗,以及在一个等中心治疗多个脑转移瘤的计划,涉及高度调制的小场。我们的目的是研究小场的准直器角度依赖性以及 ArcCHECK 配置和剂量算法不同组合之间的性能差异。为了评估和比较模型的性能,对 MC 和 CC 的计算与测量之间的一致性进行了比较。测量包括测试场的水箱测量、测试场和 VMAT 计划的 ArcCHECK 测量,以及小场的胶片剂量测定。结果和结论在非常小或狭窄的场中,我们的测量结果显示,VersaHD 和 Agility MLC 的剂量输出与准直器角度有很强的依赖性,两种剂量算法都能重现。ArcCHECK 结果显示,在使用不均匀的 ArcCHECK 图像时,对于简单的矩形场,测量结果与 MC 计算结果的一致性并不理想。因此,我们主张在使用 MC 进行 ArcCHECK 验证时使用均匀的模型图像,尤其是静态场。在临床计划的 ArcCHECK 结果中,对于 6 MV,MC 的性能与 CC 相当。对于 6 MV FFF 和首选的均匀模型图像,与 CC 相比,MC 的结果一直更好(平均伽马指数降低 13%-64% )。
Comparative assessment and QA measurement array validation of Monte Carlo and Collapsed Cone dose algorithms for small fields and clinical treatment plans
Purpose
Many studies have demonstrated superior performance of Monte Carlo (MC) over type B algorithms in heterogeneous structures. However, even in homogeneous media, MC dose simulations should outperform type B algorithms in situations of electronic disequilibrium, such as small and highly modulated fields.
Our study compares MC and Collapsed Cone (CC) dose algorithms in RayStation 12A. Under consideration are 6 MV and 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams, relevant for VMAT plans such as head-and-neck and stereotactic lung treatments with heterogeneities, as well as plans for multiple brain metastases in one isocenter, involving highly modulated small fields. We aim to investigate collimator angle dependence of small fields and performance differences between different combinations of ArcCHECK configuration and dose algorithm.
Methods
Several verification tests were performed, ranging from simple rectangular fields to highly modulated clinical plans. To evaluate and compare the performance of the models, the agreements between calculation and measurement are compared between MC and CC. Measurements include water tank measurements for test fields, ArcCHECK measurements for test fields and VMAT plans, and film dosimetry for small fields.
Results and conclusions
In very small or narrow fields, our measurements reveal a strong dependency of dose output to collimator angle for VersaHD with Agility MLC, reproduced by both dose algorithms.
ArcCHECK results highlight a suboptimal agreement between measurements and MC calculations for simple rectangular fields when using inhomogeneous ArcCHECK images. Therefore, we advocate for the use of homogeneous phantom images, particularly for static fields, in ArcCHECK verification with MC.
MC might offer performance benefits for more modulated treatment fields. In ArcCHECK results for clinical plans, MC performed comparable to CC for 6 MV. For 6 MV FFF and the preferred homogeneous phantom image, MC resulted in consistently better results (13%–64% lower mean gamma index) compared to CC.
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