1 / 14

Monte Carlo Corrected DVHs for Retrospective Dose-Volume Modeling

Monte Carlo Corrected DVHs for Retrospective Dose-Volume Modeling. Patricia Lindsay, Joseph Deasy, Issam El Naqa, Milos Vicic. Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University, St. Louis.

mercury
Download Presentation

Monte Carlo Corrected DVHs for Retrospective Dose-Volume Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monte Carlo Corrected DVHs for Retrospective Dose-Volume Modeling Patricia Lindsay, Joseph Deasy, Issam El Naqa, Milos Vicic Department of Radiation Oncology Washington University, St. Louis Partially supported by NIH grant R01 CA 90445 and a grant from Computerized Medical Systems, Inc.

  2. Motivation • Retrospective analyses of tumor control and complications of lung cancer • Need accurate 3-D dose distributions • Archived dose distributions typically calculated without accounting for tissue heterogeneity (or using a very simple heterogeneity correction) • More accurate dose distributions may lead to different correlations between dose-volume factors and complication rates

  3. Recomputation Match Monte Carlo to Water-based archived dose distribution Recalculate MC using full CT Determine beamlet weights and wedge effects Predict actual dose received by patient Computation Time – about 2 hours per plan (10 nodes on cluster of 1.6 GHz AMD processors)

  4. Monte Carlo Calculations • VMC++ Monte Carlo code (Kawrakow†) • Monte Carlo model of patient transport only • Nominal input spectra (6 or 18 MV) • Not accounting for scatter from beam modifiers (blocks, MLCs, wedges) † Kawrakow I., VMC++, Electron and Photon Monte Carlo Calculations Optimized for Radiation Treatment Planning, Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Physics, Particle Transport Simulation and Applications: Proceedings of the Monte Carlo 2000 Conference.

  5. Data Analysis in CERR • 3-D treatment plan archives (RTOG format) imported into in-house software (CERR†) • Information in CERR plan: • Beam energy • Gantry angles • MLC or block field shapes • Original 3-D dose distributions • CT scan • Not beam weights †CERR(A Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research) can be obtained from http://radium.wustl.edu/CERR

  6. Testing the method • Dose distributions prospectively generated with commercial TPS using Clarkson or Superposition/convolution algorithm, with or without heterogeneity corrections • Compared with MC with and without heterogeneity corrections • 6 and 18 MV plans • Five different patient geometries

  7. Test Case 1 • 4 fields • AP-PA, RPO-LAO • No wedges or compensators • MLC shaped • 6 MV Beam Weights: TPS: 35, 25, 24, 16 MC: 34, 26, 24, 16 (Plan review using CERR)

  8. Case 1 – DVHs • Small differences between Clarkson and Superposition/Convolution (S/C) DVHs when heterogeneity is included • MC agrees very well with S/C dose distributions in water and with heterogeneity

  9. Test Case 2 • 3 Fields • AP-PA wedged pair, LAT field • MLC shaped • 18 MV Beam Weights: TPS: 45, 46, 9 MC: 44, 43, 13

  10. Water-Based Heterogeneity Corrected TPS (S/C) Monte Carlo

  11. Case 2 – DVHs • Large differences between Clarkson and S/C DVHs when heterogeneity is included • Again MC agrees very well with S/C dose distributions both in water and with heterogeneity

  12. Case 2 – Summary

  13. Archived patient recomputations

  14. Conclusions • A novel method has been introduced to recompute Monte Carlo dose distributions from treatment planning system data. • Monte Carlo recomputation of 3D dose distributions accounting for patient heterogeneity accurately reproduce superposition/convolution dose distributions. • Using inaccurate heterogeneity corrections may lead to significant errors. • Dose distributions which accurately account for heterogeneity may have an impact on predictions of tumor control and normal tissue complication rates.

More Related