SU‐E‐T‐541

An Optimum Normalization Technique for Electron Monte Carlo Treatment Planning

Gregory k. Bartlett, Xiaoyi lu, John Kent, Colleen DesRosiers, Yuichi Akino, Indra Das

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the optimum normalization technique using the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate dose with Electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithms. Methods: Eclipse TPS was used to generate 6 and 9 MeV plans for field apertures ranging from 3 cm to 10 cm, calculation grid sizes from 1 mm to 5mm, source to surface distance (SSD) from 100 to 110, and beam incident angles from 0 to 30 degrees. Each plan was normalized to the (1) TPS global maximum and (2) the physical dmax depth on the central axis given by measured percent depth dose (PDD) data. To validate the eMC relative dose distributions, PDD and beam profiles (at dmax) were obtained in a water phantom. An irregular surface phantom and a small domed phantom were constructed for dose measurements. Results: In all cases, the TPS' PDD agreed with the measured PDD within 2.5 % beyond a depth of 0.5cm. Absolute dose measurements on the irregular surface and domed phantoms also agreed with an average difference of 2.5%. Normalizing to the physical dmax on the central axis resulted in MUs up to 10% higher than normalizing to TPS global maximum. This was due to the eMC dmax shifting as much as 6mm shallower in depth, or shifting away from the central axis vary based on field apertures and beam angle incidences. MU calculations based on tabular data from beam commissioning differed from measured by 11.1% on average when oblique angles and cutouts were used. The tabulated data are based on measurements performed in a flat phantom with no beam obliquity. Conclusion: The planned MUs using the global maximum are more closely matched with the measured values as compared with MUs generated from tabulated data. Thus, the TPS generated MUs should more accurately reflect dose delivered for patient treatments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)330
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Electrons
Water
Incidence
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐541 : An Optimum Normalization Technique for Electron Monte Carlo Treatment Planning. / Bartlett, Gregory k.; lu, Xiaoyi; Kent, John; DesRosiers, Colleen; Akino, Yuichi; Das, Indra.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 330.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bartlett, Gregory k. ; lu, Xiaoyi ; Kent, John ; DesRosiers, Colleen ; Akino, Yuichi ; Das, Indra. / SU‐E‐T‐541 : An Optimum Normalization Technique for Electron Monte Carlo Treatment Planning. In: Medical Physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 330.
@article{3a734b0f70dc4d29b8a3c57db2ff5a76,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐541: An Optimum Normalization Technique for Electron Monte Carlo Treatment Planning",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the optimum normalization technique using the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate dose with Electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithms. Methods: Eclipse TPS was used to generate 6 and 9 MeV plans for field apertures ranging from 3 cm to 10 cm, calculation grid sizes from 1 mm to 5mm, source to surface distance (SSD) from 100 to 110, and beam incident angles from 0 to 30 degrees. Each plan was normalized to the (1) TPS global maximum and (2) the physical dmax depth on the central axis given by measured percent depth dose (PDD) data. To validate the eMC relative dose distributions, PDD and beam profiles (at dmax) were obtained in a water phantom. An irregular surface phantom and a small domed phantom were constructed for dose measurements. Results: In all cases, the TPS' PDD agreed with the measured PDD within 2.5 {\%} beyond a depth of 0.5cm. Absolute dose measurements on the irregular surface and domed phantoms also agreed with an average difference of 2.5{\%}. Normalizing to the physical dmax on the central axis resulted in MUs up to 10{\%} higher than normalizing to TPS global maximum. This was due to the eMC dmax shifting as much as 6mm shallower in depth, or shifting away from the central axis vary based on field apertures and beam angle incidences. MU calculations based on tabular data from beam commissioning differed from measured by 11.1{\%} on average when oblique angles and cutouts were used. The tabulated data are based on measurements performed in a flat phantom with no beam obliquity. Conclusion: The planned MUs using the global maximum are more closely matched with the measured values as compared with MUs generated from tabulated data. Thus, the TPS generated MUs should more accurately reflect dose delivered for patient treatments.",
author = "Bartlett, {Gregory k.} and Xiaoyi lu and John Kent and Colleen DesRosiers and Yuichi Akino and Indra Das",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814971",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "330",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐541

T2 - An Optimum Normalization Technique for Electron Monte Carlo Treatment Planning

AU - Bartlett, Gregory k.

AU - lu, Xiaoyi

AU - Kent, John

AU - DesRosiers, Colleen

AU - Akino, Yuichi

AU - Das, Indra

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the optimum normalization technique using the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate dose with Electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithms. Methods: Eclipse TPS was used to generate 6 and 9 MeV plans for field apertures ranging from 3 cm to 10 cm, calculation grid sizes from 1 mm to 5mm, source to surface distance (SSD) from 100 to 110, and beam incident angles from 0 to 30 degrees. Each plan was normalized to the (1) TPS global maximum and (2) the physical dmax depth on the central axis given by measured percent depth dose (PDD) data. To validate the eMC relative dose distributions, PDD and beam profiles (at dmax) were obtained in a water phantom. An irregular surface phantom and a small domed phantom were constructed for dose measurements. Results: In all cases, the TPS' PDD agreed with the measured PDD within 2.5 % beyond a depth of 0.5cm. Absolute dose measurements on the irregular surface and domed phantoms also agreed with an average difference of 2.5%. Normalizing to the physical dmax on the central axis resulted in MUs up to 10% higher than normalizing to TPS global maximum. This was due to the eMC dmax shifting as much as 6mm shallower in depth, or shifting away from the central axis vary based on field apertures and beam angle incidences. MU calculations based on tabular data from beam commissioning differed from measured by 11.1% on average when oblique angles and cutouts were used. The tabulated data are based on measurements performed in a flat phantom with no beam obliquity. Conclusion: The planned MUs using the global maximum are more closely matched with the measured values as compared with MUs generated from tabulated data. Thus, the TPS generated MUs should more accurately reflect dose delivered for patient treatments.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the optimum normalization technique using the treatment planning system (TPS) to calculate dose with Electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithms. Methods: Eclipse TPS was used to generate 6 and 9 MeV plans for field apertures ranging from 3 cm to 10 cm, calculation grid sizes from 1 mm to 5mm, source to surface distance (SSD) from 100 to 110, and beam incident angles from 0 to 30 degrees. Each plan was normalized to the (1) TPS global maximum and (2) the physical dmax depth on the central axis given by measured percent depth dose (PDD) data. To validate the eMC relative dose distributions, PDD and beam profiles (at dmax) were obtained in a water phantom. An irregular surface phantom and a small domed phantom were constructed for dose measurements. Results: In all cases, the TPS' PDD agreed with the measured PDD within 2.5 % beyond a depth of 0.5cm. Absolute dose measurements on the irregular surface and domed phantoms also agreed with an average difference of 2.5%. Normalizing to the physical dmax on the central axis resulted in MUs up to 10% higher than normalizing to TPS global maximum. This was due to the eMC dmax shifting as much as 6mm shallower in depth, or shifting away from the central axis vary based on field apertures and beam angle incidences. MU calculations based on tabular data from beam commissioning differed from measured by 11.1% on average when oblique angles and cutouts were used. The tabulated data are based on measurements performed in a flat phantom with no beam obliquity. Conclusion: The planned MUs using the global maximum are more closely matched with the measured values as compared with MUs generated from tabulated data. Thus, the TPS generated MUs should more accurately reflect dose delivered for patient treatments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024822333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024822333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814971

DO - 10.1118/1.4814971

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 330

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -