Monte carlo investigation of collapsed versus rotated imrt plan verification
Foley, Mark J.
MetadataShow full item record
This item's downloads: 0 (view details)
Cited 7 times in Scopus (view citations)
Conneely, Elaine; Alexander, Andrew; Ruo, Russell; Chung, Eunah; Seuntjens, Jan; Foley, Mark J. (2014). Monte carlo investigation of collapsed versus rotated imrt plan verification. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 15 (3), 133-147
IMRT QA requires, among other tests, a time-consuming process of measuring the absorbed dose, at least to a point, in a high-dose, low-dose-gradient region. Some clinics use a technique of measuring this dose with all beams delivered at a single gantry angle (collapsed delivery), as opposed to the beams delivered at the planned gantry angle (rotated delivery). We examined, established, and optimized Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimetry for IMRT verification of treatment plans for these two different delivery modes (collapsed versus rotated). The results of the simulations were compared to the treatment planning system dose calculations for the two delivery modes, as well as to measurements taken. This was done in order to investigate the validity of the use of a collapsed delivery technique for IMRT QA. The BEAMnrc, DOSXYZnrc, and egs_chamber codes were utilized for the Monte Carlo simulations along with the MMCTP system. A number of different plan complexity metrics were also used in the analysis of the dose distributions in a bid to qualify why verification in a collapsed delivery may or may not be optimal for IMRT QA. Following the Alfonso et al.(1) formalism, the k(Qclin,Q)(fclin, fref) correction factor was calculated to correct the deviation of small fields from the reference conditions used for beam calibration. We report on the results obtained for a cohort of 20 patients. The plan complexity was investigated for each plan using the complexity metrics of homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score, and the fraction of beams from a particular plan that intersect the chamber when performing the QA. Rotated QA gives more consistent results than the collapsed QA technique. The k(Qclin,Q)(fclin, fref) factor deviates less from 1 for rotated QA than for collapsed QA. If the homogeneity index is less than 0.05 then the k(Qclin,Q)(fclin, fref) factor does not deviate from unity by more than 1%. A value this low for the homogeneity index can only be obtained with the rotated QA technique.