Biomedical subjects

Elinore Wieslander

Publications and source records attributed to Elinore Wieslander.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

A virtual-accelerator-based verification of a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for electron beam treatment planning in clinical situations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The introduction of Monte Carlo (MC) techniques for treatment planning and also for verification purposes will have considerable impact on the radiation therapy planning process. The aim of this work was to use a virtual accelerator to study the performance of a MC-based electron dose calculation algorithm, implemented in a commercial treatment planning system. METHODS: The performance in phantoms containing air and bone as well as in patient-specific geometries (thorax wall, nose, parotid gland and spinal cord) has been studied. RESULTS: The agreement between the virtual accelerator and the MC dose calculation algorithm is generally very good. A gamma-evaluation with criteria of 0.03 Gy/3 mm (per Gy at the depth of maximum dose) shows that, even for the worst cases, only a small volume of about 1.5% has gamma>1.0. In the worst case, with the 0.02 Gy/2 mm criteria, about 92% of the volume receiving more than 0.85 Gy per 100 monitor units (MU) has gamma-values <1.0. The corresponding value for the volume receiving more than 0.10 Gy/100 MU is about 98%. For the 18 MeV spinal-cord case, where a 6 x 20 cm2 insert is used, the TPS underestimates the dose outside the primary field due to inadequate modelling of the insert. CONCLUSION: The possibility of dose calculations in typical patient cases makes the virtual accelerator a powerful tool for validation and evaluation of dose calculation algorithms present in treatment planning systems.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2006

Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations.

A study of the performance of five commercial radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) for common treatment sites regarding their ability to model heterogeneities and scattered photons has been performed. The comparison was based on CT information for prostate, head and neck, breast and lung cancer cases. The TPSs were installed locally at different institutions and commissioned for clinical use based on local procedures. For the evaluation, beam qualities as identical as possible were used: low energy (6 MV) and high energy (15 or 18 MV) x-rays. All relevant anatomical structures were outlined and simple treatment plans were set up. Images, structures and plans were exported, anonymized and distributed to the participating institutions using the DICOM protocol. The plans were then re-calculated locally and exported back for evaluation. The TPSs cover dose calculation techniques from correction-based equivalent path length algorithms to model-based algorithms. These were divided into two groups based on how changes in electron transport are accounted for ((a) not considered and (b) considered). Increasing the complexity from the relatively homogeneous pelvic region to the very inhomogeneous lung region resulted in less accurate dose distributions. Improvements in the calculated dose have been shown when models consider volume scatter and changes in electron transport, especially when the extension of the irradiated volume was limited and when low densities were present in or adjacent to the fields. A Monte Carlo calculated algorithm input data set and a benchmark set for a virtual linear accelerator have been produced which have facilitated the analysis and interpretation of the results. The more sophisticated models in the type b group exhibit changes in both absorbed dose and its distribution which are congruent with the simulations performed by Monte Carlo-based virtual accelerator.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2006

A virtual-accelerator-based verification of a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for electron beam treatment planning in homogeneous phantoms.

By introducing Monte Carlo (MC) techniques to the verification procedure of dose calculation algorithms in treatment planning systems (TPSs), problems associated with conventional measurements can be avoided and properties that are considered unmeasurable can be studied. The aim of the study is to implement a virtual accelerator, based on MC simulations, to evaluate the performance of a dose calculation algorithm for electron beams in a commercial TPS. The TPS algorithm is MC based and the virtual accelerator is used to study the accuracy of the algorithm in water phantoms. The basic test of the implementation of the virtual accelerator is successful for 6 and 12 MeV (gamma < 1.0, 0.02 Gy/2 mm). For 18 MeV, there are problems in the profile data for some of the applicators, where the TPS underestimates the dose. For fields equipped with patient-specific inserts, the agreement is generally good. The exception is 6 MeV where there are slightly larger deviations. The concept of the virtual accelerator is shown to be feasible and has the potential to be a powerful tool for vendors and users.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Dose perturbation in the presence of metallic implants: treatment planning system versus Monte Carlo simulations.

An increasing number of patients receiving radiation therapy have metallic implants such as hip prostheses. Therefore, beams are normally set up to avoid irradiation through the implant; however, this cannot always be accomplished. In such situations, knowledge of the accuracy of the used treatment planning system (TPS) is required. Two algorithms, the pencil beam (PB) and the collapsed cone (CC), are implemented in the studied TPS. Comparisons are made with Monte Carlo simulations for 6 and 18 MV. The studied materials are steel, CoCrMo, Orthinox, TiAlV and Ti. Monte Carlo simulated depth dose curves and dose profiles are compared to CC and PB calculated data. The CC algorithm shows overall a better agreement with Monte Carlo than the PB algorithm. Thus, it is recommended to use the CC algorithm to get the most accurate dose calculation both for the planning target volume and for tissues adjacent to the implants when beams are set up to pass through implants.

Algorithms↗