PURPOSE: To commission and benchmark a vendor-supplied (Varian Medical Systems) Monte Carlo phase-space data for the 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy mode on a TrueBeam linear accelerator for the purpose of quality assurance of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. A method for rendering the phase-space data compatible with BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc simulation software package is presented. METHODS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed to benchmark the TrueBeam 6 MV FFF phase space data that have been released by the Varian MC Research team. The simulations to benchmark the phase space data were done in three steps. First, the original phase space which was created on a cylindrical surface was converted into a format that was compatible with BEAMnrc. Second, BEAMnrc was used to create field size specific phase spaces located underneath the jaws. Third, doses were calculated with DOSXYZnrc in a water phantom for fields ranging from 1 × 1 to 40 × 40 cm(2). Calculated percent depth doses (PDD), transverse profiles, and output factors were compared with measurements for all the fields simulated. After completing the benchmarking study, three stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) VMAT plans created with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) were calculated with Monte Carlo. Ion chamber and film measurements were also performed on these plans. 3D gamma analysis was used to compare Monte Carlo calculation with TPS calculations and with film measurement. RESULTS: For the benchmarking study, MC calculated and measured values agreed within 1% and 1.5% for PDDs and in-field transverse profiles, respectively, for field sizes >1 × 1 cm(2). Agreements in the 80%-20% penumbra widths were better than 2 mm for all the fields that were compared. With the exception of the 1 × 1 cm(2) field, the agreement between measured and calculated output factors was within 1%. It is of note that excellent agreement in output factors for all field sizes including highly asymmetric fields was achieved without accounting for backscatter into the beam monitor chamber. For the SBRT VMAT plans, the agreement between Monte Carlo and ion chamber point dose measurements was within 1%. Excellent agreement between Monte Carlo, treatment planning system and Gafchromic film dose distribution was observed with over 99% of the points in the high dose volume passing the 3%, 3 mm gamma test. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have presented a method for making the Varian IAEA compliant 6 MV FFF phase space file of the TrueBeam linac compatible with BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc. After benchmarking the modified phase space against measurement, they have demonstrated its potential for use in MC based quality assurance of complex delivery techniques.
PURPOSE: To commission and benchmark a vendor-supplied (Varian Medical Systems) Monte Carlo phase-space data for the 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy mode on a TrueBeam linear accelerator for the purpose of quality assurance of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. A method for rendering the phase-space data compatible with BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc simulation software package is presented. METHODS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed to benchmark the TrueBeam 6 MV FFF phase space data that have been released by the Varian MC Research team. The simulations to benchmark the phase space data were done in three steps. First, the original phase space which was created on a cylindrical surface was converted into a format that was compatible with BEAMnrc. Second, BEAMnrc was used to create field size specific phase spaces located underneath the jaws. Third, doses were calculated with DOSXYZnrc in a water phantom for fields ranging from 1 × 1 to 40 × 40 cm(2). Calculated percent depth doses (PDD), transverse profiles, and output factors were compared with measurements for all the fields simulated. After completing the benchmarking study, three stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) VMAT plans created with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) were calculated with Monte Carlo. Ion chamber and film measurements were also performed on these plans. 3D gamma analysis was used to compare Monte Carlo calculation with TPS calculations and with film measurement. RESULTS: For the benchmarking study, MC calculated and measured values agreed within 1% and 1.5% for PDDs and in-field transverse profiles, respectively, for field sizes >1 × 1 cm(2). Agreements in the 80%-20% penumbra widths were better than 2 mm for all the fields that were compared. With the exception of the 1 × 1 cm(2) field, the agreement between measured and calculated output factors was within 1%. It is of note that excellent agreement in output factors for all field sizes including highly asymmetric fields was achieved without accounting for backscatter into the beam monitor chamber. For the SBRT VMAT plans, the agreement between Monte Carlo and ion chamber point dose measurements was within 1%. Excellent agreement between Monte Carlo, treatment planning system and Gafchromic film dose distribution was observed with over 99% of the points in the high dose volume passing the 3%, 3 mm gamma test. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have presented a method for making the Varian IAEA compliant 6 MV FFF phase space file of the TrueBeam linac compatible with BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc. After benchmarking the modified phase space against measurement, they have demonstrated its potential for use in MC based quality assurance of complex delivery techniques.
Authors: Yuhe Wang; Thomas R Mazur; Olga Green; Yanle Hu; Hua Li; Vivian Rodriguez; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Tianyu Zhao; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christos Moustakis; Mark K H Chan; Jinkoo Kim; Joakim Nilsson; Alanah Bergman; Tewfik J Bichay; Isabel Palazon Cano; Savino Cilla; Francesco Deodato; Raffaela Doro; Jürgen Dunst; Hans Theodor Eich; Pierre Fau; Ming Fong; Uwe Haverkamp; Simon Heinze; Guido Hildebrandt; Detlef Imhoff; Erik de Klerck; Janett Köhn; Ulrike Lambrecht; Britta Loutfi-Krauss; Fatemeh Ebrahimi; Laura Masi; Alan H Mayville; Ante Mestrovic; Maaike Milder; Alessio G Morganti; Dirk Rades; Ulla Ramm; Claus Rödel; Frank-Andre Siebert; Wilhelm den Toom; Lei Wang; Stefan Wurster; Achim Schweikard; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Ryu; Oliver Blanck Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jinghui Wang; Stefania Trovati; Philipp M Borchard; Billy W Loo; Peter G Maxim; Rebecca Fahrig Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 4.071
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