SU‐GG‐T‐143: Comparisons of a Monte Carlo IMRT Plan Recalculation Results with the Pinnacle Treatment Planning System

J. Cui, S. Davidson, V. Willcut, I. el Naqa, D. Followill, J. Deasy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We developed a Monte Carlo based IMRT recalculation tool and determined its parameters for Varian Clinac 2100C 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams. We report our comparisons with prostate and head and neck IMRT Pinnacle treatment plans. Method and Materials: Our source model components include: a primary photon point source, an extended extra‐focal source, and contamination electrons. One unique feature of the system is that it is fluence‐based, not a segment based calculation. A modified composite fluence map for each beam is built by summing the MLC segments and modifying for the effects of leakage, and rounded leaf edges. Model parameters are automatically determined by fitting to measurements. We re‐computed two 6 MV head & neck, and three 18 MV prostate, IMRT plans created by Pinnacle. For head & neck plans, we compared the DVHs of PTV, brainstem and parotid glands, as well as the mean dose to parotid glands. For the prostate plans, the DVHs for PTV, rectum, and bladder, as well as the D50, D98, and minimum doses for PTV are compared. Results: We found that our dose calculation system is comparable with Pinnacle for prostate IMRT plans, with small differences. For the prostate tests, the D50 for the PTV agrees within 0.7% with Pinnacle. DVHs for rectum and bladder all agree closely. The model predicts more pronounced dose inhomogeneity inside PTV in head and neck cases: the average reduction in the D98 value for the primary PTV was 5.5%. Conclusion: As expected, prostate IMRT recalculations agree well with the Pinnacle results. However, differences in head and neck results may be due to improved physics in the Monte Carlo system. The results support the use of the Monte Carlo tool as a treatment planning QA tool. Conflict of Interest: Work partially supported by grant PHS CA010953.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Neck
Head
Parotid Gland
Photons
Rectum
Urinary Bladder
Conflict of Interest
Organized Financing
Physics
Brain Stem
Electrons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐GG‐T‐143 : Comparisons of a Monte Carlo IMRT Plan Recalculation Results with the Pinnacle Treatment Planning System. / Cui, J.; Davidson, S.; Willcut, V.; el Naqa, I.; Followill, D.; Deasy, J.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cui, J. ; Davidson, S. ; Willcut, V. ; el Naqa, I. ; Followill, D. ; Deasy, J. / SU‐GG‐T‐143 : Comparisons of a Monte Carlo IMRT Plan Recalculation Results with the Pinnacle Treatment Planning System. In: Medical Physics. 2008 ; Vol. 35, No. 6.
@article{3f4f8b52ad7b44538d563d998b50b493,
title = "SU‐GG‐T‐143: Comparisons of a Monte Carlo IMRT Plan Recalculation Results with the Pinnacle Treatment Planning System",
abstract = "Purpose: We developed a Monte Carlo based IMRT recalculation tool and determined its parameters for Varian Clinac 2100C 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams. We report our comparisons with prostate and head and neck IMRT Pinnacle treatment plans. Method and Materials: Our source model components include: a primary photon point source, an extended extra‐focal source, and contamination electrons. One unique feature of the system is that it is fluence‐based, not a segment based calculation. A modified composite fluence map for each beam is built by summing the MLC segments and modifying for the effects of leakage, and rounded leaf edges. Model parameters are automatically determined by fitting to measurements. We re‐computed two 6 MV head & neck, and three 18 MV prostate, IMRT plans created by Pinnacle. For head & neck plans, we compared the DVHs of PTV, brainstem and parotid glands, as well as the mean dose to parotid glands. For the prostate plans, the DVHs for PTV, rectum, and bladder, as well as the D50, D98, and minimum doses for PTV are compared. Results: We found that our dose calculation system is comparable with Pinnacle for prostate IMRT plans, with small differences. For the prostate tests, the D50 for the PTV agrees within 0.7{\%} with Pinnacle. DVHs for rectum and bladder all agree closely. The model predicts more pronounced dose inhomogeneity inside PTV in head and neck cases: the average reduction in the D98 value for the primary PTV was 5.5{\%}. Conclusion: As expected, prostate IMRT recalculations agree well with the Pinnacle results. However, differences in head and neck results may be due to improved physics in the Monte Carlo system. The results support the use of the Monte Carlo tool as a treatment planning QA tool. Conflict of Interest: Work partially supported by grant PHS CA010953.",
author = "J. Cui and S. Davidson and V. Willcut and {el Naqa}, I. and D. Followill and J. Deasy",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1118/1.2961895",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐T‐143

T2 - Comparisons of a Monte Carlo IMRT Plan Recalculation Results with the Pinnacle Treatment Planning System

AU - Cui, J.

AU - Davidson, S.

AU - Willcut, V.

AU - el Naqa, I.

AU - Followill, D.

AU - Deasy, J.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Purpose: We developed a Monte Carlo based IMRT recalculation tool and determined its parameters for Varian Clinac 2100C 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams. We report our comparisons with prostate and head and neck IMRT Pinnacle treatment plans. Method and Materials: Our source model components include: a primary photon point source, an extended extra‐focal source, and contamination electrons. One unique feature of the system is that it is fluence‐based, not a segment based calculation. A modified composite fluence map for each beam is built by summing the MLC segments and modifying for the effects of leakage, and rounded leaf edges. Model parameters are automatically determined by fitting to measurements. We re‐computed two 6 MV head & neck, and three 18 MV prostate, IMRT plans created by Pinnacle. For head & neck plans, we compared the DVHs of PTV, brainstem and parotid glands, as well as the mean dose to parotid glands. For the prostate plans, the DVHs for PTV, rectum, and bladder, as well as the D50, D98, and minimum doses for PTV are compared. Results: We found that our dose calculation system is comparable with Pinnacle for prostate IMRT plans, with small differences. For the prostate tests, the D50 for the PTV agrees within 0.7% with Pinnacle. DVHs for rectum and bladder all agree closely. The model predicts more pronounced dose inhomogeneity inside PTV in head and neck cases: the average reduction in the D98 value for the primary PTV was 5.5%. Conclusion: As expected, prostate IMRT recalculations agree well with the Pinnacle results. However, differences in head and neck results may be due to improved physics in the Monte Carlo system. The results support the use of the Monte Carlo tool as a treatment planning QA tool. Conflict of Interest: Work partially supported by grant PHS CA010953.

AB - Purpose: We developed a Monte Carlo based IMRT recalculation tool and determined its parameters for Varian Clinac 2100C 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams. We report our comparisons with prostate and head and neck IMRT Pinnacle treatment plans. Method and Materials: Our source model components include: a primary photon point source, an extended extra‐focal source, and contamination electrons. One unique feature of the system is that it is fluence‐based, not a segment based calculation. A modified composite fluence map for each beam is built by summing the MLC segments and modifying for the effects of leakage, and rounded leaf edges. Model parameters are automatically determined by fitting to measurements. We re‐computed two 6 MV head & neck, and three 18 MV prostate, IMRT plans created by Pinnacle. For head & neck plans, we compared the DVHs of PTV, brainstem and parotid glands, as well as the mean dose to parotid glands. For the prostate plans, the DVHs for PTV, rectum, and bladder, as well as the D50, D98, and minimum doses for PTV are compared. Results: We found that our dose calculation system is comparable with Pinnacle for prostate IMRT plans, with small differences. For the prostate tests, the D50 for the PTV agrees within 0.7% with Pinnacle. DVHs for rectum and bladder all agree closely. The model predicts more pronounced dose inhomogeneity inside PTV in head and neck cases: the average reduction in the D98 value for the primary PTV was 5.5%. Conclusion: As expected, prostate IMRT recalculations agree well with the Pinnacle results. However, differences in head and neck results may be due to improved physics in the Monte Carlo system. The results support the use of the Monte Carlo tool as a treatment planning QA tool. Conflict of Interest: Work partially supported by grant PHS CA010953.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78149349045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78149349045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2961895

DO - 10.1118/1.2961895

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78149349045

VL - 35

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -