Literature DB >> 16898460

Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification using MLC log files and R/V outputs.

Wei Luo1, Jinsheng Li, Robert A Price, Lili Chen, Jie Yang, Jiajin Fan, Zuoqun Chen, Shawn McNeeley, Xiu Xu, Chang-Ming Ma.   

Abstract

Conventional IMRT dose verification using film and ion chamber measurements is useful but limited with respect to the actual dose distribution received by the patient. The Monte Carlo simulation has been introduced as an independent dose verification tool for IMRT using the patient CT data and MLC leaf sequence files, which validates the dose calculation accuracy but not the plan delivery accuracy. In this work, we propose a Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification method that reconstructs the patient dose distribution using the patient CT, actual beam data based on the information from the record and verify system (R/V), and the MLC log files obtained during dose delivery that record the MLC leaf positions and MUs delivered. Comparing the Monte Carlo dose calculation with the original IMRT plan using these data simultaneously validates the accuracy of both the IMRT dose calculation and beam delivery. Such log file based Monte Carlo simulations are expected to be employed as a useful and efficient IMRT QA modality to validate the dose delivered to the patient. We have run Monte Carlo simulations for eight IMRT prostate plans using this method and the results for the target dose were consistent with the original CORVUS treatment plans to within 3.0% and 2.0% with and without heterogeneity corrections in the dose calculation. However, significant dose deviations in nearby critical structures have been observed. The results showed that up to 9.0% of the bladder dose and up to 38.0% of the rectum dose, to which leaf position errors were found to contribute <2%, were underestimated by the CORVUS treatment planning system. The concept of average leaf position error has been defined to analyze MLC leaf position errors for an IMRT plan. A linear correlation between the target dose error and the average position error has been found based on log file based Monte Carlo simulations, showing that an average position error of 0.2 mm can result in a target dose error of about 1.0%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16898460     DOI: 10.1118/1.2208916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  23 in total

1.  The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management.

Authors:  M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Arno J Mundt; Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Frank Rath; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Three-dimensional conformal planning with low-segment multicriteria intensity modulated radiation therapy optimization.

Authors:  Fazal Khan; David Craft
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-08-21

3.  Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

Authors:  Gregory T Betzel; Byong Yong Yi; Ying Niu; Cedric X Yu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.506

4.  A method to improve fluence resolution derived from two-dimensional detector array measurements for patient-specific IMRT verification using the information collected in dynalog files.

Authors:  Juan Agustin Calama Santiago; Miguel Angel Infante Utrilla; Maria Elisa Lavado Rodriguez
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

Review 5.  Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  X Ronald Zhu; Yupeng Li; Dennis Mackin; Heng Li; Falk Poenisch; Andrew K Lee; Anita Mahajan; Steven J Frank; Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Incorporation of gantry angle correction for 3D dose prediction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Iori Sumida; Hajime Yamaguchi; Hisao Kizaki; Keiko Aboshi; Mari Tsujii; Yuji Yamada; Masashi Yagi; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 2.724

7.  A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery.

Authors:  James R Kerns; Nathan Childress; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.

Authors:  Philipp Szeverinski; Matthias Kowatsch; Thomas Künzler; Marco Meinschad; Patrick Clemens; Alexander F DeVries
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Quality assurance of MLC leaf position accuracy and relative dose effect at the MLC abutment region using an electronic portal imaging device.

Authors:  Iori Sumida; Hajime Yamaguchi; Hisao Kizaki; Masahiko Koizumi; Toshiyuki Ogata; Yutaka Takahashi; Yasuo Yoshioka
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Radiobiological model-based bio-anatomical quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Yeon Park; Jeong-Woo Lee; Jin-Beom Chung; Kyoung-Sik Choi; Yon-Lae Kim; Byung-Moon Park; Youhyun Kim; Jungmin Kim; Jonghak Choi; Jae-Sung Kim; Semie Hong; Tae-Suk Suh
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 2.724

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.