title: The importance of accurate linear accelerator head modelling for IMRT Monte Carlo calculations.
abstract: Two Monte Carlo dose engines for radiotherapy treatment planning, namely a beta release of Peregrine and MCDE (Monte Carlo dose engine), were compared with Helax-TMS (collapsed cone superposition convolution) for a head and neck patient for the Elekta SLi plus linear accelerator. Deviations between the beta release of Peregrine and MCDE up to 10% were obtained in the dose volume histogram of the optical chiasm. It was illustrated that the differences are not caused by the particle transport in the patient, but by the modelling of the Elekta SLi plus accelerator head and more specifically the multileaf collimator (MLC). In MCDE two MLC modules (MLCQ and MLCE) were introduced to study the influence of the tongue-and-groove geometry, leaf bank tilt and leakage on the actual dose volume histograms. Differences in integral dose in the optical chiasm up to 3% between the two modules have been obtained. For single small offset beams though the FWHM of lateral profiles obtained with MLCE can differ by more than 1.5 mm from profiles obtained with MLCQ. Therefore, and because the recent version of MLCE is as fast as MLCQ, we advise to use MLCE for modelling the Elekta MLC. Nevertheless there still remains a large difference (up to 10%) between Peregrine and MCDE. By studying small offset beams we have shown that the profiles obtained with Peregrine are shifted, too wide and too flat compared with MCDE and phantom measurements. The overestimated integral doses for small beam segments explain the deviations observed in the dose volume histograms. The Helax-TMS results are in better agreement with MCDE, although deviations exceeding 5% have been observed in the optical chiasm. Monte Carlo dose deviations of more than 10% as found with Peregrine are unacceptable as an influence on the clinical outcome is possible and as the purpose of Monte Carlo treatment planning is to obtain an accuracy of 2%. We would like to emphasize that only the Elekta MLC has been tested in this work, so it is certainly possible that alpha releases of Peregrine provide more accurate results for other accelerators.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Physics, Ghent University, Proeftuinstraat 86, B-9000 Gent, Belgium.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Reynaert
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Coghe
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: De Smedt
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Paelinck
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Vanderstraeten
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: De Gersem
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Van Duyse
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: De Wagter
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: De Neve
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Thierens
mesh_terms: D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D006257:Head / Q000473:pathology*; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D010315:Particle Accelerators / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods*; D012984:Software; D013997:Time Factors; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed