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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2001-04, Vol.28 (4), p.582-589
Hauptverfasser: du Plessis, F. C. P., Willemse, C. A., Lötter, M. G., Goedhals, L.
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