Ruggero Ruggieri, Nicola Bianchi, Davide Gurrera, Stefania Naccarato, Riccardo Filippo Borgese, Antonio De Simone, Gianluisa Sicignano, Pavel Stavrev, Nadejda Stavreva, Roberto Pellegrini, Michele Rigo, Francesco Ricchetti, Luca Nicosia, Niccolò Giaj-Levra, Edoardo Pastorello, Andrea Allegra, Chiara De-Colle, Filippo Alongi
{"title":"Validation of a Monte Carlo-based dose calculation engine including the 1.5 T magnetic field for independent dose-check in MRgRT.","authors":"Ruggero Ruggieri, Nicola Bianchi, Davide Gurrera, Stefania Naccarato, Riccardo Filippo Borgese, Antonio De Simone, Gianluisa Sicignano, Pavel Stavrev, Nadejda Stavreva, Roberto Pellegrini, Michele Rigo, Francesco Ricchetti, Luca Nicosia, Niccolò Giaj-Levra, Edoardo Pastorello, Andrea Allegra, Chiara De-Colle, Filippo Alongi","doi":"10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Adaptive MRgRT by 1.5 T MR-linac requires independent verification of the plan-of-the-day by the primary TPS (Monaco<sup>TM</sup>) (M). Here we validated a Monte Carlo-based dose-check including the magnetostatic field, SciMoCa<sup>TM</sup> (S).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>M and S were validated first in water, by comparison with commissioning-dosimetry. PDD(2x2cm<sup>2</sup>) through a lung(air)-equivalent virtual-slab was then calculated. Clinical validation retrospectively included 161 SBRT plans, from five patients per-site: Pelvic-Nodes, Prostate, Liver, Pancreas, and Lungs. S-minus-M percentage differences (Δ%) were computed for target- and OARs-related dose-volume metrics. In-phantom dose verification per-patient was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>γ(2 %,1mm)-passing-rates (PR%) of in-water-computed PDD and transverse-dose-profiles vs. commissioning-dosimetry were (99.1 ± 2.0)% for M, and (99.3 ± 1.5)% for S. Calculated output-factors (OF) were typically within 1 % from measurements, except for OF(1x1cm<sup>2</sup>) which was misestimated by -4.4 % and + 2.2 %, by M and S respectively. Dose spikes (valleys) on the PDD(2x2cm<sup>2</sup>) by S across the lung-equivalent virtual-slab were slightly reduced with respect to M. In clinical plans, S computed higher V95% (p <0.05*, for pancreas and lung) and D2% (p <0.05*, for all sites) for the target, while D%>2% resulted for duodenal D(1cm<sup>3</sup>), in Pancreas-SBRT, and for mean-lung-dose, in Lung-SBRT. All mostly due to the underestimated OF(1x1cm<sup>2</sup>) by M. In-phantom dose verifications showed an average 1% increase in PR% by S vs. M.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Beam-model quality in S resulted equivalent to M, thus making S useful both for an independent validation of the same beam-model in M, and for a daily validation of the M-based online approval decisions, without significantly delaying the clinical workflow (2-3 min).</p>","PeriodicalId":56092,"journal":{"name":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"130 ","pages":"104906"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Adaptive MRgRT by 1.5 T MR-linac requires independent verification of the plan-of-the-day by the primary TPS (MonacoTM) (M). Here we validated a Monte Carlo-based dose-check including the magnetostatic field, SciMoCaTM (S).
Methods: M and S were validated first in water, by comparison with commissioning-dosimetry. PDD(2x2cm2) through a lung(air)-equivalent virtual-slab was then calculated. Clinical validation retrospectively included 161 SBRT plans, from five patients per-site: Pelvic-Nodes, Prostate, Liver, Pancreas, and Lungs. S-minus-M percentage differences (Δ%) were computed for target- and OARs-related dose-volume metrics. In-phantom dose verification per-patient was performed.
Results: γ(2 %,1mm)-passing-rates (PR%) of in-water-computed PDD and transverse-dose-profiles vs. commissioning-dosimetry were (99.1 ± 2.0)% for M, and (99.3 ± 1.5)% for S. Calculated output-factors (OF) were typically within 1 % from measurements, except for OF(1x1cm2) which was misestimated by -4.4 % and + 2.2 %, by M and S respectively. Dose spikes (valleys) on the PDD(2x2cm2) by S across the lung-equivalent virtual-slab were slightly reduced with respect to M. In clinical plans, S computed higher V95% (p <0.05*, for pancreas and lung) and D2% (p <0.05*, for all sites) for the target, while D%>2% resulted for duodenal D(1cm3), in Pancreas-SBRT, and for mean-lung-dose, in Lung-SBRT. All mostly due to the underestimated OF(1x1cm2) by M. In-phantom dose verifications showed an average 1% increase in PR% by S vs. M.
Conclusions: Beam-model quality in S resulted equivalent to M, thus making S useful both for an independent validation of the same beam-model in M, and for a daily validation of the M-based online approval decisions, without significantly delaying the clinical workflow (2-3 min).
期刊介绍:
Physica Medica, European Journal of Medical Physics, publishing with Elsevier from 2007, provides an international forum for research and reviews on the following main topics:
Medical Imaging
Radiation Therapy
Radiation Protection
Measuring Systems and Signal Processing
Education and training in Medical Physics
Professional issues in Medical Physics.