Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models
This paper shows the contribution that Monte Carlo methods make in regard to dose distribution calculations in CT based patient models and the role it plays as a gold standard to evaluate other dose calculation algorithms. The EGS4 based BEAM code was used to construct a generic 8 MV accelerator to...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2001-04, Vol.28 (4), p.582-589 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 589 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 582 |
container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
container_volume | 28 |
creator | du Plessis, F. C. P. Willemse, C. A. Lötter, M. G. Goedhals, L. |
description | This paper shows the contribution that Monte Carlo methods make in regard to dose distribution calculations in CT based patient models and the role it plays as a gold standard to evaluate other dose calculation algorithms. The EGS4 based BEAM code was used to construct a generic 8 MV accelerator to obtain a series of x-ray field sources. These were used in the EGS4 based DOSXYZ code to generate beam data in a mathematical water phantom to set up a beam model in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), CADPLAN V.2.7.9. Dose distributions were calculated with the Batho and ETAR inhomogeneity correction algorithms in head/sinus, lung, and prostate patient models for
2×2,
5×5,
and
10×10
cm
2
open x-ray beams. Corresponding dose distributions were calculated with DOSXYZ that were used as a benchmark. The dose comparisons are expressed in terms of 2D isodose distributions, percentage depth dose data, and dose difference volume histograms (DDVH’s). Results indicated that the Batho and ETAR methods contained inaccuracies of 20%–70% in the maxillary sinus region in the head model. Large lung inhomogeneities irradiated with small fields gave rise to absorbed dose deviations of 10%–20%. It is shown for a
10×10
cm
2
field that DOSXYZ models lateral scatter in lung that is not present in the Batho and ETAR methods. The ETAR and Batho methods are accurate within 3% in a prostate model. We showed how the performance of these inhomogeneity correction methods can be understood in realistic patient models using validated Monte Carlo codes such as BEAM and DOSXYZ. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1118/1.1357223 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70810308</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70810308</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-8425fca4a17a5b7d31eefd287a9c9f254d45c3b8d12346bba0bcbbb012dd51f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MtKw0AUBuBBFFurC19AZiUops61SZY11Au0KFLXYW6hkUkmZhKlb280QQXR1Vmc7_wcfgCOMZpijKNLPMWUh4TQHTAmLKQBIyjeBWOEYhYQhvgIHHj_jBCaUY72wQhjSuOQ8zEQiSsqUefeldBlsNkYeCWajbuAi_X8EYpSw5UrGwMTUVsHtfMGKmFVa0WTdzeF6bD2MC9hsoZSeKNh1a1M2cDCaWP9IdjLhPXmaJgT8HS9WCe3wfL-5i6ZLwPFOKdBxAjPlGACh4LLUFNsTKZJFIpYxRnhTDOuqIw0JpTNpBRIKiklwkRrjrMZnYDTPreq3UtrfJMWuVfGWlEa1_o0RBFGFEUdPOuhqp33tcnSqs4LUW9TjNKPPlOcDn129mQIbWVh9LccCuxA0IO33Jrt30np6mEIPO-9V3nzWeHXzaurf_hKZ__h36--A0cbmMM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70810308</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>du Plessis, F. C. P. ; Willemse, C. A. ; Lötter, M. G. ; Goedhals, L.</creator><creatorcontrib>du Plessis, F. C. P. ; Willemse, C. A. ; Lötter, M. G. ; Goedhals, L.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper shows the contribution that Monte Carlo methods make in regard to dose distribution calculations in CT based patient models and the role it plays as a gold standard to evaluate other dose calculation algorithms. The EGS4 based BEAM code was used to construct a generic 8 MV accelerator to obtain a series of x-ray field sources. These were used in the EGS4 based DOSXYZ code to generate beam data in a mathematical water phantom to set up a beam model in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), CADPLAN V.2.7.9. Dose distributions were calculated with the Batho and ETAR inhomogeneity correction algorithms in head/sinus, lung, and prostate patient models for
2×2,
5×5,
and
10×10
cm
2
open x-ray beams. Corresponding dose distributions were calculated with DOSXYZ that were used as a benchmark. The dose comparisons are expressed in terms of 2D isodose distributions, percentage depth dose data, and dose difference volume histograms (DDVH’s). Results indicated that the Batho and ETAR methods contained inaccuracies of 20%–70% in the maxillary sinus region in the head model. Large lung inhomogeneities irradiated with small fields gave rise to absorbed dose deviations of 10%–20%. It is shown for a
10×10
cm
2
field that DOSXYZ models lateral scatter in lung that is not present in the Batho and ETAR methods. The ETAR and Batho methods are accurate within 3% in a prostate model. We showed how the performance of these inhomogeneity correction methods can be understood in realistic patient models using validated Monte Carlo codes such as BEAM and DOSXYZ.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.1357223</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11339755</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; beam ; Computed radiography ; computerised tomography ; CT data ; dosimetry ; Dosimetry/exposure assessment ; DOSXYZ ; field size ; Humans ; lung ; Lungs ; Male ; Medical treatment planning ; Models, Statistical ; Monte Carlo ; Monte Carlo algorithms ; Monte Carlo Method ; Monte Carlo methods ; patient dose distribution ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Physicists ; physiological models ; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; radiation therapy ; Radiometry ; Software ; Tissue Distribution ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Water ; X‐ray beam source magnets ; X‐ray coded apertures ; x‐ray energy ; X‐ray scattering</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2001-04, Vol.28 (4), p.582-589</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2001 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-8425fca4a17a5b7d31eefd287a9c9f254d45c3b8d12346bba0bcbbb012dd51f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-8425fca4a17a5b7d31eefd287a9c9f254d45c3b8d12346bba0bcbbb012dd51f63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1118%2F1.1357223$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.1357223$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>du Plessis, F. C. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willemse, C. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lötter, M. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goedhals, L.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>This paper shows the contribution that Monte Carlo methods make in regard to dose distribution calculations in CT based patient models and the role it plays as a gold standard to evaluate other dose calculation algorithms. The EGS4 based BEAM code was used to construct a generic 8 MV accelerator to obtain a series of x-ray field sources. These were used in the EGS4 based DOSXYZ code to generate beam data in a mathematical water phantom to set up a beam model in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), CADPLAN V.2.7.9. Dose distributions were calculated with the Batho and ETAR inhomogeneity correction algorithms in head/sinus, lung, and prostate patient models for
2×2,
5×5,
and
10×10
cm
2
open x-ray beams. Corresponding dose distributions were calculated with DOSXYZ that were used as a benchmark. The dose comparisons are expressed in terms of 2D isodose distributions, percentage depth dose data, and dose difference volume histograms (DDVH’s). Results indicated that the Batho and ETAR methods contained inaccuracies of 20%–70% in the maxillary sinus region in the head model. Large lung inhomogeneities irradiated with small fields gave rise to absorbed dose deviations of 10%–20%. It is shown for a
10×10
cm
2
field that DOSXYZ models lateral scatter in lung that is not present in the Batho and ETAR methods. The ETAR and Batho methods are accurate within 3% in a prostate model. We showed how the performance of these inhomogeneity correction methods can be understood in realistic patient models using validated Monte Carlo codes such as BEAM and DOSXYZ.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>beam</subject><subject>Computed radiography</subject><subject>computerised tomography</subject><subject>CT data</subject><subject>dosimetry</subject><subject>Dosimetry/exposure assessment</subject><subject>DOSXYZ</subject><subject>field size</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>lung</subject><subject>Lungs</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical treatment planning</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Monte Carlo</subject><subject>Monte Carlo algorithms</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>Monte Carlo methods</subject><subject>patient dose distribution</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Physicists</subject><subject>physiological models</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>radiation therapy</subject><subject>Radiometry</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Tissue Distribution</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>X‐ray beam source magnets</subject><subject>X‐ray coded apertures</subject><subject>x‐ray energy</subject><subject>X‐ray scattering</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90MtKw0AUBuBBFFurC19AZiUops61SZY11Au0KFLXYW6hkUkmZhKlb280QQXR1Vmc7_wcfgCOMZpijKNLPMWUh4TQHTAmLKQBIyjeBWOEYhYQhvgIHHj_jBCaUY72wQhjSuOQ8zEQiSsqUefeldBlsNkYeCWajbuAi_X8EYpSw5UrGwMTUVsHtfMGKmFVa0WTdzeF6bD2MC9hsoZSeKNh1a1M2cDCaWP9IdjLhPXmaJgT8HS9WCe3wfL-5i6ZLwPFOKdBxAjPlGACh4LLUFNsTKZJFIpYxRnhTDOuqIw0JpTNpBRIKiklwkRrjrMZnYDTPreq3UtrfJMWuVfGWlEa1_o0RBFGFEUdPOuhqp33tcnSqs4LUW9TjNKPPlOcDn129mQIbWVh9LccCuxA0IO33Jrt30np6mEIPO-9V3nzWeHXzaurf_hKZ__h36--A0cbmMM</recordid><startdate>200104</startdate><enddate>200104</enddate><creator>du Plessis, F. C. P.</creator><creator>Willemse, C. A.</creator><creator>Lötter, M. G.</creator><creator>Goedhals, L.</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200104</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models</title><author>du Plessis, F. C. P. ; Willemse, C. A. ; Lötter, M. G. ; Goedhals, L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4553-8425fca4a17a5b7d31eefd287a9c9f254d45c3b8d12346bba0bcbbb012dd51f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>beam</topic><topic>Computed radiography</topic><topic>computerised tomography</topic><topic>CT data</topic><topic>dosimetry</topic><topic>Dosimetry/exposure assessment</topic><topic>DOSXYZ</topic><topic>field size</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>lung</topic><topic>Lungs</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical treatment planning</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Monte Carlo</topic><topic>Monte Carlo algorithms</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>Monte Carlo methods</topic><topic>patient dose distribution</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Physicists</topic><topic>physiological models</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>radiation therapy</topic><topic>Radiometry</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Tissue Distribution</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>X‐ray beam source magnets</topic><topic>X‐ray coded apertures</topic><topic>x‐ray energy</topic><topic>X‐ray scattering</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>du Plessis, F. C. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willemse, C. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lötter, M. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goedhals, L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>du Plessis, F. C. P.</au><au>Willemse, C. A.</au><au>Lötter, M. G.</au><au>Goedhals, L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2001-04</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>582</spage><epage>589</epage><pages>582-589</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>This paper shows the contribution that Monte Carlo methods make in regard to dose distribution calculations in CT based patient models and the role it plays as a gold standard to evaluate other dose calculation algorithms. The EGS4 based BEAM code was used to construct a generic 8 MV accelerator to obtain a series of x-ray field sources. These were used in the EGS4 based DOSXYZ code to generate beam data in a mathematical water phantom to set up a beam model in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), CADPLAN V.2.7.9. Dose distributions were calculated with the Batho and ETAR inhomogeneity correction algorithms in head/sinus, lung, and prostate patient models for
2×2,
5×5,
and
10×10
cm
2
open x-ray beams. Corresponding dose distributions were calculated with DOSXYZ that were used as a benchmark. The dose comparisons are expressed in terms of 2D isodose distributions, percentage depth dose data, and dose difference volume histograms (DDVH’s). Results indicated that the Batho and ETAR methods contained inaccuracies of 20%–70% in the maxillary sinus region in the head model. Large lung inhomogeneities irradiated with small fields gave rise to absorbed dose deviations of 10%–20%. It is shown for a
10×10
cm
2
field that DOSXYZ models lateral scatter in lung that is not present in the Batho and ETAR methods. The ETAR and Batho methods are accurate within 3% in a prostate model. We showed how the performance of these inhomogeneity correction methods can be understood in realistic patient models using validated Monte Carlo codes such as BEAM and DOSXYZ.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><pmid>11339755</pmid><doi>10.1118/1.1357223</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2001-04, Vol.28 (4), p.582-589 |
issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70810308 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Algorithms beam Computed radiography computerised tomography CT data dosimetry Dosimetry/exposure assessment DOSXYZ field size Humans lung Lungs Male Medical treatment planning Models, Statistical Monte Carlo Monte Carlo algorithms Monte Carlo Method Monte Carlo methods patient dose distribution Phantoms, Imaging Physicists physiological models Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy radiation therapy Radiometry Software Tissue Distribution Tomography, X-Ray Computed - instrumentation Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Water X‐ray beam source magnets X‐ray coded apertures x‐ray energy X‐ray scattering |
title | Comparison of the Batho, ETAR and Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in CT based patient models |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T23%3A13%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Batho,%20ETAR%20and%20Monte%20Carlo%20dose%20calculation%20methods%20in%20CT%20based%20patient%20models&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=du%20Plessis,%20F.%20C.%20P.&rft.date=2001-04&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=582&rft.epage=589&rft.pages=582-589&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.1357223&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70810308%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70810308&rft_id=info:pmid/11339755&rfr_iscdi=true |