Dosimetric Comparison of Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms in Conformal Lung Radiotherapy

Overview

Journal J Appl Clin Med Phys

Specialties Biophysics
General Medicine

Date 2018 Aug 7

PMID 30079474

Citations 8

Authors

Yelda Elcim

Bahar Dirican

Omer Yavas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, lung radiotherapy target volumes as well as critical organs such as the lungs, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart doses calculated using pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm-based treatment planning systems (TPSs) were compared. The main aim was the evaluation of calculated dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms in a highly heterogeneous medium.

Methods: A total of 6 MV photon energy conformal treatment plans were created for a RANDO lung phantom using one PB algorithm-based Precise Plan Release 2.16 TPS and one MC algorithm-based Monaco TPS. Thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) were placed into appropriate slices within the RANDO phantom and then irradiated with an Elekta-Synergy Linear Accelerator for dose verification. Doses were calculated for the V5, V10, V20, and mean lung doses (MLDs) in bilateral lungs and D50, D98, D2, and mean doses in the target volume (planning target volume, PTV).

Results: The minimum, maximum, and mean doses of the target volumes and critical organs in two treatment plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVHs). The mean dose difference between the PB and MC algorithms for the PTV was 0.3%, whereas the differences in V5, V10, V20, and MLD were 12.5%, 15.8%, 14.4%, and 9.1%, respectively. The differences in PTV coverage between the two algorithms were 0.9%, 2.7% and 0.7% for D50, D98 and D2, respectively.

Conclusions: A comparison of the dose data acquired in this study reveals that the MC algorithm calculations are closer to the 60 Gy prescribed dose for PTV, while the difference between the PB and MC algorithms was found to be non-significant. Because of the major difference arising from the dose calculation techniques by TPS that was observed in the MLD with significant medium heterogeneity, we recommend the use of the MC algorithm in such heterogeneous sites.

Citing Articles

Monte Carlo methods to assess biological response to radiation in peripheral organs and in critical organs near the target.

Matuszak N, Piotrowski I, Kruszyna-Mochalska M, Skrobala A, Mocydlarz-Adamcewicz M, Malicki J Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2025; 29(5):638-648.

PMID: 39759550 PMC: 11698553. DOI: 10.5603/rpor.103525.

Dosimetric Impact of Prescription Point Placement in Heterogeneous Medium for Conformal Radiotherapy Dose Calculation with Various Algorithms.

Pandu B, Khanna D, Palanisamy M, Jacob S, Manichan S J Med Phys. 2024; 49(3):400-409.

PMID: 39526146 PMC: 11548077. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_71_24.

Impact of Dose Calculation Algorithms and Radiobiological Parameters on Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Complications in Left Breast Radiation Therapy.

Kargar N, Zeinali A, Molazadeh M J Biomed Phys Eng. 2024; 14(2):129-140.

PMID: 38628897 PMC: 11016826. DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2305-1616.

Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Kolacio M, Rajlic D, Radojcic M, Radojcic D, Obajdin N, Dundara Debeljuh D Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2022; 27(1):86-96.

PMID: 35402037 PMC: 8989458. DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0013.

Investigation of tube voltage dependence on CT number and its effect on dose calculation algorithms using thorax phantom in Monaco treatment planning system for external beam radiation therapy.

Saini A, Pandey V, Kumar P, Singh A, Pasricha R J Med Phys. 2022; 46(4):315-323.

PMID: 35261502 PMC: 8853450. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_124_20.

References

Nielsen T, Wieslander E, Fogliata A, Nielsen M, Hansen O, Brink C . Influence of dose calculation algorithms on the predicted dose distribution and NTCP values for NSCLC patients. Med Phys. 2011; 38(5):2412-8. DOI: 10.1118/1.3575418. View

Andreo P . Monte Carlo techniques in medical radiation physics. Phys Med Biol. 1991; 36(7):861-920. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/36/7/001. View

Bufacchi A, Nardiello B, Capparella R, Begnozzi L . Clinical implications in the use of the PBC algorithm versus the AAA by comparison of different NTCP models/parameters. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8(1):164. PMC: 3750611. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-164. View

Rogers D . Fifty years of Monte Carlo simulations for medical physics. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(13):R287-301. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R17. View

Ali I, Ahmad S . Quantitative assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation using pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms and requirements for clinical quality assurance. Med Dosim. 2013; 38(3):255-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.02.005. View

Knoos T, Ceberg C, Weber L, Nilsson P . The dosimetric verification of a pencil beam based treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 1994; 39(10):1609-28. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/39/10/007. View

Disher B, Hajdok G, Gaede S, Battista J . An in-depth Monte Carlo study of lateral electron disequilibrium for small fields in ultra-low density lung: implications for modern radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57(6):1543-59. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/6/1543. View

Krieger T, Sauer O . Monte Carlo- versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(5):859-68. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/010. View

Gete E, Teke T, Kwa W . Evaluation of the AAA Treatment Planning Algorithm for SBRT Lung Treatment: Comparison with Monte Carlo and Homogeneous Pencil Beam Dose Calculations. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2019; 43(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2011.09.002. View

10.

Engelsman M, Damen E, Koken P, van t Veld A, van Ingen K, Mijnheer B . Impact of simple tissue inhomogeneity correction algorithms on conformal radiotherapy of lung tumours. Radiother Oncol. 2001; 60(3):299-309. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(01)00387-5. View

11.

Carrasco P, Jornet N, Duch M, Weber L, Ginjaume M, Eudaldo T . Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in phantoms with lung equivalent heterogeneities under conditions of lateral electronic disequilibrium. Med Phys. 2004; 31(10):2899-911. DOI: 10.1118/1.1788932. View

12.

Kry S, Alvarez P, Molineu A, Amador C, Galvin J, Followill D . Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 85(1):e95-100. PMC: 3522855. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039. View

13.

Klein E, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin F, Simon W, Dresser S . Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009; 36(9):4197-212. DOI: 10.1118/1.3190392. View

14.

De Jaeger K, Hoogeman M, Engelsman M, Seppenwoolde Y, Damen E, Mijnheer B . Incorporating an improved dose-calculation algorithm in conformal radiotherapy of lung cancer: re-evaluation of dose in normal lung tissue. Radiother Oncol. 2003; 69(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(03)00195-6. View

15.

McDermott P, He T, DeYoung A . Dose calculation accuracy of lung planning with a commercial IMRT treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003; 4(4):341-51. PMC: 5724454. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v4i4.2505. View

16.

Zhao Y, Qi G, Yin G, Wang X, Wang P, Li J . A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation. Radiat Oncol. 2014; 9:287. PMC: 4276018. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-014-0287-2. View