Influence of monte carlo variance with fluence smoothing in VMAT treatment planning with Monaco TPS

被引:11
作者
Sarkar, B. [1 ]
Manikandan, A. [2 ]
Nandy, M. [3 ]
Munshi, A. [4 ]
Sayan, P. [4 ]
Sujatha, N. [5 ]
机构
[1] AMRI Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Kolkata, India
[2] Narayana Hrudayala, Dept Radiat Oncol, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
[3] Saha Inst Nucl Phys, Div Chem Sci, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
[4] Fortis Mem Res Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
[5] Guntur Med Coll, Dept Radiat Oncol, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
关键词
Fluence smoothening factor; monte carlo; volumetric modulated arc therapy; VOLUMETRIC MODULATED ARC; RADIATION-THERAPY; IMRT; IMPLEMENTATION;
D O I
10.4103/0019-509X.180820
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to investigate the interplay between Monte Carlo Variance (MCV) and fluence smoothing factor (FSF) in volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning by using a sample set of complex treatment planning cases and a X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system equipped with tools to tune fluence smoothness as well as MCV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The dosimetric (dose to tumor volume, and organ at risk) and physical characteristic (treatment time, number of segments, and so on) of a set 45 treatment plans for all combinations of 1%, 3%, 5% MCV and 1, 3, 5 FSF were evaluated for five carcinoma esophagus cases under the study. RESULT: Increase in FSF reduce the treatment time. Variation of MCV and FSF gives a highest planning target volume (PTV), heart and lung dose variation of 3.6%, 12.8% and 4.3%, respectively. The heart dose variation was highest among all organs at risk. Highest variation of spinal cord dose was 0.6 Gy. CONCLUSION: Variation of MCV and FSF influences the organ at risk (OAR) doses significantly but not PTV coverage and dose homogeneity. Variation in FSF causes difference in dosimetric and physical parameters for the treatment plans but variation of MCV does not. MCV 3% or less do not improve the plan quality significantly (physical and clinical) compared with MCV greater than 3%. The use of MCV between 3% and 5% gives similar results as 1% with lesser calculation time. Minimally detected differences in plan quality suggest that the optimum FSF can be set between 3 and 5.
引用
收藏
页码:158 / 161
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Forward treatment planning for modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) employing Monte Carlo methods
    Henzen, D.
    Manser, P.
    Frei, D.
    Volken, W.
    Neuenschwander, H.
    Born, E. J.
    Loessl, K.
    Aebersold, D. M.
    Stampanoni, M. F. M.
    Fix, M. K.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (03)
  • [22] Photon energy-modulated radiotherapy: Monte Carlo simulation and treatment planning study
    Park, Jong Min
    Kim, Jung-in
    Choi, Chang Heon
    Chie, Eui Kyu
    Kim, Il Han
    Ye, Sung-Joon
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (03) : 1265 - 1277
  • [23] Dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty on Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy using Monaco TPS for three different clinical cases
    Palanisamy, Mohandass
    David, Khanna
    Durai, Manigandan
    Bhalla, Narendra
    Puri, Abhishek
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2019, 24 (02) : 188 - 199
  • [24] Treatment planning in 3 and 4 dimensions and the role of Monte Carlo techniques
    Paganetti, H.
    WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2006, VOL 14, PTS 1-6, 2007, 14 : 2203 - 2206
  • [25] Evaluation of an electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for treatment planning
    Chamberland, Eve
    Beaulieu, Luc
    Lachance, Bernard
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (03): : 60 - 79
  • [26] Efficiency enhancements of a Monte Carlo beamlet based treatment planning process: implementation and parameter study
    Mueller, S.
    Guyer, G.
    Volken, W.
    Frei, D.
    Torelli, N.
    Aebersold, D. M.
    Manser, P.
    Fix, M. K.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2023, 68 (04)
  • [27] Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media
    Radojcic, Djeni Smilovic
    Casar, Bozidar
    Rajlic, David
    Kolacio, Manda Svabic
    Mendez, Ignasi
    Obajdin, Nevena
    Debeljuh, Dea Dundara
    Jurkovic, Slaven
    RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 54 (04) : 495 - 504
  • [28] Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations
    Abazarfard, Mojtaba
    Azadeh, Payam
    Mostaar, Ahmad
    POLISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING, 2021, 27 (03): : 181 - 190
  • [29] Proton and helium ion radiotherapy for meningioma tumors: a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning comparison
    Tessonnier, Thomas
    Mairani, Andrea
    Chen, Wenjing
    Sala, Paola
    Cerutti, Francesco
    Ferrari, Alfredo
    Haberer, Thomas
    Debus, Juergen
    Parodi, Katia
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2018, 13
  • [30] Evaluation of a commercial Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for electron treatment planning
    Huang, Jessie Y.
    Dunkerley, David
    Smilowitz, Jennifer B.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 20 (06): : 184 - 193