Literature DB >> 21858999

Modeling the truebeam linac using a CAD to Geant4 geometry implementation: dose and IAEA-compliant phase space calculations.

Magdalena Constantin1, Joseph Perl, Tom LoSasso, Arthur Salop, David Whittum, Anisha Narula, Michelle Svatos, Paul J Keall.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To create an accurate 6 MV Monte Carlo simulation phase space for the Varian TrueBeam treatment head geometry imported from CAD (computer aided design) without adjusting the input electron phase space parameters.
METHODS: GEANT4 v4.9.2.p01 was employed to simulate the 6 MV beam treatment head geometry of the Varian TrueBeam linac. The electron tracks in the linear accelerator were simulated with Parmela, and the obtained electron phase space was used as an input to the Monte Carlo beam transport and dose calculations. The geometry components are tessellated solids included in GEANT4 as GDML (generalized dynamic markup language) files obtained via STEP (standard for the exchange of product) export from Pro/Engineering, followed by STEP import in Fastrad, a STEP-GDML converter. The linac has a compact treatment head and the small space between the shielding collimator and the divergent are of the upper jaws forbids the implementation of a plane for storing the phase space. Instead, an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) compliant phase space writer was implemented on a cylindrical surface. The simulation was run in parallel on a 1200 node Linux cluster. The 6 MV dose calculations were performed for field sizes varying from 4 x 4 to 40 x 40 cm2. The voxel size for the 60 x 60 x 40 cm3 water phantom was 4 x 4 x 4 mm3. For the 10 x 10 cm2 field, surface buildup calculations were performed using 4 x 4 x 2 mm3 voxels within 20 mm of the surface.
RESULTS: For the depth dose curves, 98% of the calculated data points agree within 2% with the experimental measurements for depths between 2 and 40 cm. For depths between 5 and 30 cm, agreement within 1% is obtained for 99% (4 x 4), 95% (10 x 10), 94% (20 x 20 and 30 x 30), and 89% (40 x 40) of the data points, respectively. In the buildup region, the agreement is within 2%, except at 1 mm depth where the deviation is 5% for the 10 x 10 cm2 open field. For the lateral dose profiles, within the field size for fields up to 30 x 30 cm2, the agreement is within 2% for depths up to 10 cm. At 20 cm depth, the in-field maximum dose difference for the 30 x 30 cm2 open field is within 4%, while the smaller field sizes agree within 2%. Outside the field size, agreement within 1% of the maximum dose difference is obtained for all fields. The calculated output factors varied from 0.938 +/- 0.015 for the 4 x 4 cm2 field to 1.088 +/- 0.024 for the 40 x 40 cm2 field. Their agreement with the experimental output factors is within 1%.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors have validated a GEANT4 simulated IAEA-compliant phase space of the TrueBeam linac for the 6 MV beam obtained using a high accuracy geometry implementation from CAD. These files are publicly available and can be used for further research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21858999     DOI: 10.1118/1.3598439

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


  31 in total

Review 1.  Monte Carlo systems used for treatment planning and dose verification.

Authors:  Lorenzo Brualla; Miguel Rodriguez; Antonio M Lallena
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Dependence of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization on cell geometry.

Authors:  Wonmo Sung; Sung-Joon Ye; Aimee L McNamara; Stephen J McMahon; James Hainfeld; Jungwook Shin; Henry M Smilowitz; Harald Paganetti; Jan Schuemann
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 7.790

3.  Rapid Monte Carlo simulation of detector DQE(f).

Authors:  Josh Star-Lack; Mingshan Sun; Andre Meyer; Daniel Morf; Dragos Constantin; Rebecca Fahrig; Eric Abel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A surface energy spectral study on the bone heterogeneity and beam obliquity using the flattened and unflattened photon beams.

Authors:  James C L Chow; Amir M Owrangi
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2015-11-30

5.  Radiological tissue equivalence of deformable silicone-based chemical radiation dosimeters (FlexyDos3D).

Authors:  Yi Du; Ruoxi Wang; Meijiao Wang; Haizhen Yue; Yibao Zhang; Hao Wu; Weihu Wang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  A Monte Carlo study of the impact of phosphor optical properties on EPID imaging performance.

Authors:  Mengying Shi; Marios Myronakis; Yue-Houng Hu; Daniel Morf; Joerg Rottmann; Ross Berbeco
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  A novel multilayer MV imager computational model for component optimization.

Authors:  Marios Myronakis; Josh Star-Lack; Paul Baturin; Joerg Rottmann; Daniel Morf; Adam Wang; Yue-Houng Hu; Daniel Shedlock; Ross I Berbeco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A piecewise-focused high DQE detector for MV imaging.

Authors:  Josh Star-Lack; Daniel Shedlock; Dennis Swahn; Dave Humber; Adam Wang; Hayley Hirsh; George Zentai; Daren Sawkey; Isaac Kruger; Mingshan Sun; Eric Abel; Gary Virshup; Mihye Shin; Rebecca Fahrig
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Investigation of the use of external aluminium targets for portal imaging in a medical accelerator using Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Hyungdong Kim; Byungyong Kim; Jonggeun Baek; Youngkee Oh; Sangmo Yun; Hyunsoo Jang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Radiotherapy of lung cancers: FFF beams improve dose coverage at tumor periphery compromised by electronic disequilibrium.

Authors:  Oleg N Vassiliev; Stephen F Kry; He C Wang; Christine B Peterson; Joe Y Chang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.