Denoising of Monte Carlo dose calculations: smoothing capabilities versus introduction of systematic bias.
In order to evaluate the performance of denoising algorithms applied to Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions, conventional evaluation methods (rms difference, 1% and 2% difference) can be used. However, it is illustrated that these evaluation methods sometimes underestimate the introduction of bias, since possible bias effects are averaged out over the complete dose distribution. In the present work, a new evaluation method is introduced based on a sliding window superimposed on a difference dose distribution (reference dose-noisy/denoised dose). To illustrate its importance, a new denoising technique (ANRT) is presented based upon a combination of the principles of bilateral filtering and Savitzky-Golay filters. This technique is very conservative in order to limit the introduction of bias in high dose gradient regions. ANRT is compared with IRON for three challenging cases, namely an electron and photon beam impinging on heterogeneous phantoms and two IMRT treatment plans of head-and-neck cancer patients to determine the clinical relevance of the obtained results. For the electron beam case, IRON outperforms ANRT concerning the smoothing capabilities, while no differences in systematic bias are observed. However, for the photon beam case, although ANRT and IRON perform equally well on the conventional evaluation tests (rms difference, 1% and 2% difference), IRON clearly introduces much more bias in the penumbral regions while ANRT seems to introduce no bias at all. When applied to the IMRT patient cases, both denoising methods perform equally well regarding smoothing and bias introduction. This is probably caused by the summation of a large set of different beam segments, decreasing dose gradients compared to a single beam. A reduction in calculation time without introducing large systematic bias can shorten a Monte Carlo treatment planning process considerably and is therefore very useful for the initial trial and error phase of the treatment planning process.
De Smedt
B
B
Department of Medical Physics, Ghent University, Proeftuinstraat 86, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. bart.desmedt@ugent.be
Fippel
M
M
Reynaert
N
N
Thierens
H
H
D000465:Algorithms; D015982:Bias; D005374:Filtration / Q000379:methods; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011859:Radiography; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*