SU‐E‐T‐416: Experimental Evaluation of a Commercial GPU‐Based Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Algorithm

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) 2015-06, Vol.42 (6Part18), p.3429-3429
• Main Authors: Paudel, M R, Kim, A, Beachey, D J, Ahmad, S, Sarfehnia, A, Sahgal, A, Keller, B
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ALGORITHMS; ANIMAL TISSUES; COMMISSIONING; Computer modeling; DEPTH DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; Error analysis; Field size; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; LUNGS; Magnetic effects; MAGNETIC FIELDS; Medical treatment planning; Monte Carlo algorithms; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NEOPLASMS; NMR IMAGING; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; SKELETON
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4924777

Purpose: A new commercial GPU‐based Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm (GPUMCD) developed by the vendor Elekta™ to be used in the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) is capable of modeling dose for both a standard linear accelerator and for an Elekta MRI‐Linear accelerator (modeling magnetic field effects). We are evaluating this algorithm in two parts: commissioning the algorithm for an Elekta Agility linear accelerator (the focus of this work) and evaluating the algorithm's ability to model magnetic field effects for an MRI‐linear accelerator. Methods: A beam model was developed in the Monaco TPS (v.5.09.06) using the commissioned beam data for a 6MV Agility linac. A heterogeneous phantom representing tumor‐in‐lung, lung, bone‐in‐tissue, and prosthetic was designed/built. Dose calculations in Monaco were done using the current clinical algorithm (XVMC) and the new GPUMCD algorithm (1 mm3 voxel size, 0.5% statistical uncertainty) and in the Pinnacle TPS using the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm. These were compared with the measured doses using an ionization chamber (A1SL) and Gafchromic EBT3 films for 2×2 cm2, 5×5 cm2, and 10×10 cm2 field sizes. Results: The calculated central axis percentage depth doses (PDDs) in homogeneous solid water were within 2% compared to measurements for XVMC and GPUMCD. For tumor‐in‐lung and lung phantoms, doses calculated by all of the algorithms were within the experimental uncertainty of the measurements (±2% in the homogeneous phantom and ±3% for the tumor‐in‐lung or lung phantoms), except for 2×2 cm2 field size where only the CCC algorithm differs from film by 5% in the lung region. The analysis for bone‐in‐tissue and the prosthetic phantoms are ongoing. Conclusion: The new GPUMCD algorithm calculated dose comparable to both the XVMC algorithm and to measurements in both a homogeneous solid water medium and the heterogeneous phantom representing lung or tumor‐in‐lung for 2×2 cm2‐10×10 cm2 field sizes. Funding support was obtained from Elekta.