Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator

Boram Lee, Seonghoon Jeong, Kwangzoo Chung, Myonggeun Yoon, Hee Chul Park, Youngyih Han, Sang Hoon Jung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the quality of patient-specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose-calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated. Materials and Methods: A dose-calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (Dmax, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC-based QA system. Results: A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0%. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3%/3 mm) were 98.1%, 99.1%, 99.2%, and 97.1% for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively. Conclusions: We constructed an MC-based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small-field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)101-110
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Volume20
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Oct 1

Fingerprint

GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
assurance
collimators
Quality assurance
pretreatment
therapy
platforms
arcs
dosage
flattening
Therapeutics
planning
filters
Planning
engines
Patient treatment
Engines
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)
Information Systems

Keywords

  • GATE
  • HD120
  • Monte Carlo
  • TPS QA
  • TrueBeam

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator. / Lee, Boram; Jeong, Seonghoon; Chung, Kwangzoo; Yoon, Myonggeun; Park, Hee Chul; Han, Youngyih; Jung, Sang Hoon.

In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 20, No. 10, 01.10.2019, p. 101-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, Boram ; Jeong, Seonghoon ; Chung, Kwangzoo ; Yoon, Myonggeun ; Park, Hee Chul ; Han, Youngyih ; Jung, Sang Hoon. / Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator. In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2019 ; Vol. 20, No. 10. pp. 101-110.
@article{f08846a048d4426eb58e73aed0c34662,
title = "Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the quality of patient-specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose-calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated. Materials and Methods: A dose-calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (Dmax, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC-based QA system. Results: A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0{\%}. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3{\%}/3 mm) were 98.1{\%}, 99.1{\%}, 99.2{\%}, and 97.1{\%} for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively. Conclusions: We constructed an MC-based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small-field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.",
keywords = "GATE, HD120, Monte Carlo, TPS QA, TrueBeam",
author = "Boram Lee and Seonghoon Jeong and Kwangzoo Chung and Myonggeun Yoon and Park, {Hee Chul} and Youngyih Han and Jung, {Sang Hoon}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12718",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "101--110",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator

AU - Lee, Boram

AU - Jeong, Seonghoon

AU - Chung, Kwangzoo

AU - Yoon, Myonggeun

AU - Park, Hee Chul

AU - Han, Youngyih

AU - Jung, Sang Hoon

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the quality of patient-specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose-calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated. Materials and Methods: A dose-calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (Dmax, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC-based QA system. Results: A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0%. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3%/3 mm) were 98.1%, 99.1%, 99.2%, and 97.1% for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively. Conclusions: We constructed an MC-based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small-field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the quality of patient-specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose-calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated. Materials and Methods: A dose-calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (Dmax, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC-based QA system. Results: A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0%. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3%/3 mm) were 98.1%, 99.1%, 99.2%, and 97.1% for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively. Conclusions: We constructed an MC-based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small-field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.

KW - GATE

KW - HD120

KW - Monte Carlo

KW - TPS QA

KW - TrueBeam

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073729446&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073729446&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12718

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12718

M3 - Article

C2 - 31544350

AN - SCOPUS:85073729446

VL - 20

SP - 101

EP - 110

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 10

ER -