Biomedical subjects

W van der Zee

Publications and source records attributed to W van der Zee.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

ORANGE: a Monte Carlo dose engine for radiotherapy.

This study presents data for the verification of ORANGE, a fast MCNP-based dose engine for radiotherapy treatment planning. In order to verify the new algorithm, it has been benchmarked against DOSXYZ and against measurements. For the benchmarking, first calculations have been done using the ICCR-XIII benchmark. Next, calculations have been done with DOSXYZ and ORANGE in five different phantoms (one homogeneous, two with bone equivalent inserts and two with lung equivalent inserts). The calculations have been done with two mono-energetic photon beams (2 MeV and 6 MeV) and two mono-energetic electron beams (10 MeV and 20 MeV). Comparison of the calculated data (from DOSXYZ and ORANGE) against measurements was possible for a realistic 10 MV photon beam and a realistic 15 MeV electron beam in a homogeneous phantom only. For the comparison of the calculated dose distributions and dose distributions against measurements, the concept of the confidence limit (CL) has been used. This concept reduces the difference between two data sets to a single number, which gives the deviation for 90% of the dose distributions. Using this concept, it was found that ORANGE was always within the statistical bandwidth with DOSXYZ and the measurements. The ICCR-XIII benchmark showed that ORANGE is seven times faster than DOSXYZ, a result comparable with other accelerated Monte Carlo dose systems when no variance reduction is used. As shown for XVMC, using variance reduction techniques has the potential for further acceleration. Using modern computer hardware, this brings the total calculation time for a dose distribution with 1.5% (statistical) accuracy within the clinical range (less then 10 min). This means that ORANGE can be a candidate for a dose engine in radiotherapy treatment planning.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Scattered radiation from applicators in clinical electron beams.

In radiotherapy with high-energy (4-25 MeV) electron beams, scattered radiation from the electron applicator influences the dose distribution in the patient. In most currently available treatment planning systems for radiotherapy this component is not explicitly included and handled only by a slight change of the intensity of the primary beam. The scattered radiation from an applicator changes with the field size and distance from the applicator. The amount of scattered radiation is dependent on the applicator design and on the formation of the electron beam in the treatment head. Electron applicators currently applied in most treatment machines are essentially a set of diaphragms, but still do produce scattered radiation. This paper investigates the present level of scattered dose from electron applicators, and as such provides an extensive set of measured data. The data provided could for instance serve as example input data or benchmark data for advanced treatment planning algorithms which employ a parametrized initial phase space to characterize the clinical electron beam. Central axis depth dose curves of the electron beams have been measured with and without applicators in place, for various applicator sizes and energies, for a Siemens Primus, a Varian 2300 C/D and an Elekta SLi accelerator. Scattered radiation generated by the applicator has been found by subtraction of the central axis depth dose curves, obtained with and without applicator. Scattered radiation from Siemens, Varian and Elekta electron applicators is still significant and cannot be neglected in advanced treatment planning. Scattered radiation at the surface of a water phantom can be as high as 12%. Scattered radiation decreases almost linearly with depth. Scattered radiation from Varian applicators shows clear dependence on beam energy. The Elekta applicators produce less scattered radiation than those of Varian and Siemens, but feature a higher effective angular variance. The scattered radiation decreases somewhat with increasing field size and is spread uniformly over the aperture. Experimental results comply with the results of simulations of the treatment head and electron applicator, using the BEAM Monte Carlo code, and Siemens, but feature a higher effective angular variance. The scattered radiation decreases somewhat with increasing field size and is spread uniformly over the aperture. Experimental results comply with the results of simulations of the treatment head and electron applicator, using the BEAM Monte Carlo code.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

A Monte Carlo study on internal wedges using BEAM.

To do calculations for wedged photon beams with the NRC Monte Carlo simulation package BEAM, a new Component Module for wedges called WEDGE has been designed and built. After an initial series of benchmarks using monoenergetic photon beams as well as realistic 6 MV and 10 MV beams, it was found, that the new CM did work fine for the large wedge (maximum field size 30 x 40 cm2) of the Elekta SL-linac. The next step was to calculate dose distributions and output factors for a range of wedged fields with field size from 3 x 3 cm2 to 30 x 30 cm2. Results from these simulations have been compared to measurements. Calculated values for the reference wedge transmission factor and the relative wedge transmission factors were within 1.5% from the measured data. Dose distributions showed an identical behavior; both depth-dose curves as well as cross profiles were within 1.5% from measured data, usually even better. Despite the increased mean energy, there was no indication that, as a result, the phantom scatter output factors will change for a 10 MV photon beam. It was found that by adding a wedge the contributions for the different sources of head scatter changed considerably as compared to the open fields, apart from the additional scatter from the wedge. Another consequence of inserting a wedge was an increase in the mean energy of both primary and scattered radiation with 0.3 MV and 0.7 MV, respectively, for all wedged fields with respect to the corresponding open fields. Despite the statistical uncertainty in the calculated data, which is in the same order of magnitude as the effect to be determined, it was possible to derive reliable data for the beam hardening from the calculated dose distributions. Only for the smallest field (field size 3 x 3 cm2) a large difference between the measured and calculated beam hardening factor was found due to the relative large voxel size of 1 x 1 x 1 cm3 compared to the field size. For a description of the influence of a wedge on a photon beam, the results of this study strongly support the use of a reference wedge transmission factor (determined under reference conditions) in combination with a relative wedge transmission factor. The product of these variables should replace the collimator scatter output factor used in open fields. The influence on the dose distribution should be incorporated by using the (field size dependent) beam hardening. The ultimate solution will be to make this beam hardening depending on the actual position in the radiation field, as the photon energy varies over the field (holds also for open fields).

Algorithms↗

PubMed1999

Calculating photon beam characteristics with Monte Carlo techniques.

This study describes the results from a simulation of a 10 MV photon beam from a medical linac using the BEAM code. To check the quality of the generated photon beam, the characteristics of this beam (depth dose curve, cross profiles, and output factors) have been calculated and compared to measured data. By splitting up the radiation head in two parts, the target section and the collimator section calculation times were long, but acceptable when aiming at phase space files containing some 5 million particles. Given the number of particles evaluated, the accuracy of all data was around 2%. Analysis of the phase space files for different field size supports results from previous studies about contaminant particles and sources for scattered radiation for photon beams from medical linacs. The total scatter output factor Scp as well as the collimator scatter output factor Sc have been calculated within 2% of measurements. Also, the ratio between dose at a reference point for the full scatter situation and the no-scatter situation has been calculated correctly. All depth dose curves and cross profiles have also been calculated correctly, although with only moderate statistics. Improvements are possible by increasing the number of particles in the simulations (up to 50 million for the largest field size) at least 4-8 times, although calculation times will increase with the same factor. Nevertheless, the method proved itself as reliable. Still, the accuracy should be improved to 1% or better. This is necessary as we plan to use Monte Carlo simulations to benchmark three-dimensional radiotherapy planning systems. By increasing the number of particles in the phase space files and subsequently increasing the number of particles in each simulation, this 1% accuracy will be achieved. The easy way to increase the number of particles in a simulation by increasing the number of times phase space files, which were already recycled ten times, are reused from ten times (this study) to 40 times or more will not work, as it introduces artifacts, especially in the cross profiles.

Biophysical Phenomena↗

PubMed1997

A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation: application to the prostate.

PURPOSE: This article presents a method of quantitative assessment of the degree of conformality and its designation by a single numerical value. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A conformation number is introduced to evaluate objectively the degree of conformality. A comparison is made between the conformation number as found for external beam treatment plans and ultrasonically guided 125I seed implants for localized prostate cancer. RESULTS: The conformation number in case of a planning target volume irradiated with two opposed open beams, three open beams, and three beams with customized blocks amounted to 0.17, 0.39, and 0.65, respectively. The conformation number as found for ultrasonically guided permanent prostate implants using 125I seeds averaged 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: The conformation number is a convenient instrument for indicating the degree of conformality by a single numerical value. Treatments with a conformation number greater than 0.60 might be termed conformal radiotherapy.

Brachytherapy↗