A comparison of electron beam dose calculation accuracy between treatment planning systems using either a pencil beam or a Monte Carlo algorithm. Export

@article{Ding2005, abstract = {PURPOSE: To present a comparison of the accuracy of two commercial electron beam treatment planning systems: one uses a Monte Carlo algorithm and the other uses a pencil beam model for dose calculations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For the same inhomogeneous phantoms and incident beams, measured dose distributions are compared with those predicted by the commercial treatment planning systems at different source-to-surface distances (SSDs). The accuracy of the pencil beam system for monitor unit calculations is also tested at various SSDs. Beam energies of 6-20 MeV are used. RESULTS: The pencil beam model shows some serious limitations in predicting hot and cold spots in inhomogeneous phantoms for small low- or high-density inhomogeneities, especially for low-energy electron beams, such as 9 MeV. Errors (>10\%) are seen in predicting high- and low-dose variations for three-dimensional inhomogeneous phantoms. The Monte Carlo calculated results generally agree much better with measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the pencil beam calculations is difficult to predict because it depends on both the inhomogeneity geometry and location. The pencil beam calculations using CADPLAN result in large errors in phantoms containing three-dimensional type inhomogeneities. The Monte Carlo method in Theraplan Plus dose calculation module is shown to be more robust in accurately predicting dose distributions and monitor units under the tested conditions.}, address = {Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1301 22nd Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. george.ding@vanderbilt.edu}, author = {Ding, G. X. and Cygler, J. E. and Yu, C. W. and Kalach, N. I. and Daskalov, G.}, citeulike-article-id = {3340331}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.016}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168854}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=16168854}, day = {1}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.016}, issn = {0360-3016}, journal = {International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics}, keywords = {algorithm, beam, electrons, monte\_carlo, pencil, pencil\_beam, physics, planning, treatment}, month = {October}, number = {2}, pages = {622--633}, posted-at = {2008-09-26 16:39:28}, priority = {2}, title = {A comparison of electron beam dose calculation accuracy between treatment planning systems using either a pencil beam or a Monte Carlo algorithm.}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.016}, volume = {63}, year = {2005} }

TY - JOUR ID - Ding2005 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3340331 N2 - PURPOSE: To present a comparison of the accuracy of two commercial electron beam treatment planning systems: one uses a Monte Carlo algorithm and the other uses a pencil beam model for dose calculations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For the same inhomogeneous phantoms and incident beams, measured dose distributions are compared with those predicted by the commercial treatment planning systems at different source-to-surface distances (SSDs). The accuracy of the pencil beam system for monitor unit calculations is also tested at various SSDs. Beam energies of 6-20 MeV are used. RESULTS: The pencil beam model shows some serious limitations in predicting hot and cold spots in inhomogeneous phantoms for small low- or high-density inhomogeneities, especially for low-energy electron beams, such as 9 MeV. Errors (>10%) are seen in predicting high- and low-dose variations for three-dimensional inhomogeneous phantoms. The Monte Carlo calculated results generally agree much better with measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the pencil beam calculations is difficult to predict because it depends on both the inhomogeneity geometry and location. The pencil beam calculations using CADPLAN result in large errors in phantoms containing three-dimensional type inhomogeneities. The Monte Carlo method in Theraplan Plus dose calculation module is shown to be more robust in accurately predicting dose distributions and monitor units under the tested conditions. IS - 2 JF - International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics SN - 0360-3016 AD - Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1301 22nd Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. george.ding@vanderbilt.edu EP - 633 TI - A comparison of electron beam dose calculation accuracy between treatment planning systems using either a pencil beam or a Monte Carlo algorithm. VL - 63 SP - 622 KW - algorithm KW - beam KW - electrons KW - monte_carlo KW - pencil KW - pencil_beam KW - physics KW - planning KW - treatment AU - Ding, GX AU - Cygler, JE AU - Yu, CW AU - Kalach, NI AU - Daskalov, G PY - 2005/10/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.016 ER -