Anna Rodrigues1, Daren Sawkey2, Fang-Fang Yin1, Qiuwen Wu1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710 and Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27705. 2. Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California 94304.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a framework for accurate electron Monte Carlo dose calculation. In this study, comprehensive validations of vendor provided electron beam phase space files for Varian TrueBeam Linacs against measurement data are presented. METHODS: In this framework, the Monte Carlo generated phase space files were provided by the vendor and used as input to the downstream plan-specific simulations including jaws, electron applicators, and water phantom computed in the EGSnrc environment. The phase space files were generated based on open field commissioning data. A subset of electron energies of 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV and open and collimated field sizes 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 20 × 20, and 25 × 25 cm(2) were evaluated. Measurements acquired with a CC13 cylindrical ionization chamber and electron diode detector and simulations from this framework were compared for a water phantom geometry. The evaluation metrics include percent depth dose, orthogonal and diagonal profiles at depths R100, R50, Rp, and Rp+ for standard and extended source-to-surface distances (SSD), as well as cone and cut-out output factors. RESULTS: Agreement for the percent depth dose and orthogonal profiles between measurement and Monte Carlo was generally within 2% or 1 mm. The largest discrepancies were observed within depths of 5 mm from phantom surface. Differences in field size, penumbra, and flatness for the orthogonal profiles at depths R100, R50, and Rp were within 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2%, respectively. Orthogonal profiles at SSDs of 100 and 120 cm showed the same level of agreement. Cone and cut-out output factors agreed well with maximum differences within 2.5% for 6 MeV and 1% for all other energies. Cone output factors at extended SSDs of 105, 110, 115, and 120 cm exhibited similar levels of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for electron beam dose calculations for Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Electron beam energies of 6 to 20 MeV for open and collimated field sizes from 3 × 3 to 25 × 25 cm(2) were studied and results were compared to the measurement data with excellent agreement. Application of this framework can thus be used as the platform for treatment planning of dynamic electron arc radiotherapy and other advanced dynamic techniques with electron beams.
PURPOSE: To develop a framework for accurate electron Monte Carlo dose calculation. In this study, comprehensive validations of vendor provided electron beam phase space files for Varian TrueBeam Linacs against measurement data are presented. METHODS: In this framework, the Monte Carlo generated phase space files were provided by the vendor and used as input to the downstream plan-specific simulations including jaws, electron applicators, and water phantom computed in the EGSnrc environment. The phase space files were generated based on open field commissioning data. A subset of electron energies of 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV and open and collimated field sizes 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 20 × 20, and 25 × 25 cm(2) were evaluated. Measurements acquired with a CC13 cylindrical ionization chamber and electron diode detector and simulations from this framework were compared for a water phantom geometry. The evaluation metrics include percent depth dose, orthogonal and diagonal profiles at depths R100, R50, Rp, and Rp+ for standard and extended source-to-surface distances (SSD), as well as cone and cut-out output factors. RESULTS: Agreement for the percent depth dose and orthogonal profiles between measurement and Monte Carlo was generally within 2% or 1 mm. The largest discrepancies were observed within depths of 5 mm from phantom surface. Differences in field size, penumbra, and flatness for the orthogonal profiles at depths R100, R50, and Rp were within 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2%, respectively. Orthogonal profiles at SSDs of 100 and 120 cm showed the same level of agreement. Cone and cut-out output factors agreed well with maximum differences within 2.5% for 6 MeV and 1% for all other energies. Cone output factors at extended SSDs of 105, 110, 115, and 120 cm exhibited similar levels of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for electron beam dose calculations for Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Electron beam energies of 6 to 20 MeV for open and collimated field sizes from 3 × 3 to 25 × 25 cm(2) were studied and results were compared to the measurement data with excellent agreement. Application of this framework can thus be used as the platform for treatment planning of dynamic electron arc radiotherapy and other advanced dynamic techniques with electron beams.