治疗计划系统中光子小场的剂量计算精度与蒙特卡罗模拟的比较

IF 0.7 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0022
Mojtaba Abazarfard, P. Azadeh, A. Mostaar
{"title":"治疗计划系统中光子小场的剂量计算精度与蒙特卡罗模拟的比较","authors":"Mojtaba Abazarfard, P. Azadeh, A. Mostaar","doi":"10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.","PeriodicalId":53955,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations\",\"authors\":\"Mojtaba Abazarfard, P. Azadeh, A. Mostaar\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/pjmpe-2021-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:先进的放射治疗技术在治疗计划和递送中使用小范围。小视场具有更精确的剂量传递的优点,但代价是剂量学中的一些并发症。在不同的治疗计划系统(tps)中引入不同的剂量计算算法,每个算法都具有不同的精度。蒙特卡罗(MC)模拟已被报道为计算放射治疗中剂量分布的精确方法之一。本研究的目的是针对2个MC代码评估小范围TPS剂量计算算法。方法:用2种MC编码、MCNPX和GATE模拟直线头部。然后用2个MC代码模拟了三个小场(0.5×0.5、1×1和1.5×1.5 cm2),并在Isogray和Monaco TPS中采用不同的剂量计算算法对这些小场进行了规划。提取pdd和侧位剂量分布,并与MC模拟和剂量计算算法进行比较。结果:0.5×0.5 cm2范围内,CCC、叠加、FFT和Clarkson算法与MCNPX的pdd平均差异分别为2.28、4.6、5.3和7.4%,与GATE的pdd平均差异分别为-0.29、2.3、3和5%。对于1×1 cm2, CCC、叠加、FFT和Clarkson算法与MCNPX的pdd平均差异分别为1.58、0.6、1.1和1.4%,与GATE的pdd平均差异为0.77、0.1、0.6和0.9%。对于1.5×1.5 cm2区域,CCC、叠加、FFT和Clarkson算法与MCNPX的pdd平均差异分别为0.82、0.4、0.6和-0.4%,与GATE的pdd平均差异分别为2.38、2.5、2.7和1.7%。结论:对不同剂量计算算法进行了评价,并与MC模拟在小范围内进行了比较。各算法与MC模拟的平均差异随场大小的增加而减小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations
Abstract Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering (PJMPE) (Online ISSN: 1898-0309; Print ISSN: 1425-4689) is an official publication of the Polish Society of Medical Physics. It is a peer-reviewed, open access scientific journal with no publication fees. The issues are published quarterly online. The Journal publishes original contribution in medical physics and biomedical engineering.
期刊最新文献
Parametrization of subsegmental infarcts using high spatial resolution 2DSTE and synthetic ultrasonic data Automated differential diagnostics of respiratory diseases using an electronic stethoscope Evaluating the impact of anatomical changes on dose distributions in head and neck cancer Comparing eDQE and eNEQ metrics – is there an alternative approach to assessing image quality in digital mammography? Vascular stiffness in cold pressor test hyper-reactors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1