Photon beam dose calculation algorithms l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 51

Photon Beam Dose Calculation Algorithms PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 1963 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Photon Beam Dose Calculation Algorithms. Kent A. Gifford, Ph.D. Medical Physics III Spring 2010. Dose Computation Algorithms. Correction-based (Ancient!) Convolution (Pinnacle,Eclipse,…) Monte Carlo (Stochastic) Deterministic (Non-stochastic). Photon Source. Standard SSD. Patient

Download Presentation

Photon Beam Dose Calculation Algorithms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Photon beam dose calculation algorithms l.jpg

Photon Beam Dose Calculation Algorithms

Kent A. Gifford, Ph.D.

Medical Physics III Spring 2010


Dose computation algorithms l.jpg

Dose Computation Algorithms

  • Correction-based (Ancient!)

  • Convolution (Pinnacle,Eclipse,…)

  • Monte Carlo (Stochastic)

  • Deterministic (Non-stochastic)


Correction based algorithms l.jpg

Photon Source

Standard SSD

Patient

composition

Patient SSD,

Thickness

Measurements

Calculations (Correction Factors)

Correction-based algorithms

Water


Correction based semi empirical l.jpg

Correction-based:Semi-empirical

  • Empirical: Standard measurements

  • Analytical:

    Correction factors for:

    • Beam modifiers: shaped blocks, wedges…

    • Patient contours

    • Patient heterogeneities


Measurements l.jpg

Measurements

  • Percent Depth Dose

  • Lateral Dose Profiles

  • Beam Output Measurements

  • Wedge Factor Measurements


Generating functions l.jpg

Generating Functions

  • Convert phantom dose to patient dose

    Examples:

    • Tissue-Phantom Ratio - Attenuation

    • Inverse square factor – Distance

    • Lookup tables, e.g. off-axis factors


Generating functions7 l.jpg

Generating Functions

  • Accurate ONLY in case of electronic equilibrium

    • Dmax and beyond

    • Far from heterogeneities

      Issues:

    • Small tumors in presence of heterogeneities

    • Small field sizes


Beam modifier corrections l.jpg

Beam Modifier Corrections

  • Must correct for attenuation through beam modifiers:

    1. Wedges- WF, wedged profiles

    2. Compensators- attenuation measurements

    3. Blocks- OF


Contour corrections l.jpg

Contour Corrections

Attenuation corrections due to “missing” tissue

  • Effective SSD Method

    • Uses PDD. Assumes PDD independent of SSD. Scales Dmax with inverse square factor.


Contour corrections10 l.jpg

Contour Corrections

  • TMR (TAR) Ratio Method

    • Exploits independence of TMR and SSD

    • More accurate than Effective SSD method.


Contour corrections11 l.jpg

Contour Corrections

  • Isodose Shift Method

    • Pre-dates modern treatment planning systems

    • Manual method; generates isodose curves for irregular patient contours

    • Greene & Stewart. Br J Radiol 1965; SundblomActa Radiol 1965


Contour corrections12 l.jpg

Contour Corrections


Contour corrections13 l.jpg

Contour corrections

  • Effective attenuation method

    • Corrects for average attenuation along beam direction

    • Least accurate and easiest to apply


Heterogeneity corrections l.jpg

Heterogeneity Corrections

  • One dimensional:

    1. TMR ratio: CF=TMReff /TMRphysical

    • Corrects for primary photon attenuation

    • Not as accurate in heterogeneity proximity


Heterogeneity corrections batho power law l.jpg

Heterogeneity CorrectionsBatho power law


Problems with correction based algorithms l.jpg

Problems with correction-based algorithms

  • Usually assume electronic equilibrium

  • Inaccurate near heterogeneities

    • Errors as large as 20%

    • Require copious measurements


Convolution algorithms l.jpg

Convolution Algorithms

  • Rely on fewer measurements

  • Measured data:

    • Fingerprint to characterize beam

    • Model beam fluence

  • Energy deposition at and around photon interaction sites is computed


Convolution explicitly modeled beam features l.jpg

Convolution: Explicitly Modeled Beam Features

  • Source size

  • Extrafocal radiation:

    • flattening filter, jaws,...

  • Beam spectrum– change with lateral position (flattening filter)

  • Collimator transmission

  • Wedges, blocks, compensators…


Primary and scatter concepts l.jpg

r’

r

Primary and Scatter Concepts

  • Two types of energy deposition events

  • Primary photon interactions.

  • Scatter photon interactions.


Dose from scatter interactions l.jpg

Dose from Scatter Interactions

  • To calculate dose at a single point:

    • Must consider contributions of energy scattered from points over the volume of the patient.

r’

r’

r’


Convolution volume segmented into voxels volume elements l.jpg

Convolution: Volume segmented into voxels (volume elements)

Primary fluence(dose)

Interaction sites

Dose spread array


Convolution algorithm heterogeneities radiological path length l.jpg

Convolution Algorithm:Heterogeneities Radiological path length


Convolution algorithm l.jpg

Convolution Algorithm


Primary energy fluence y r l.jpg

Primary Energy Fluence - Y(r’)

  • Product of primary photons/area and photon energy

  • Computed at all points within the patient from a model of the beam leaving the treatment head


Mass attenuation coefficient m r r l.jpg

Mass Attenuation Coefficientm / r (r’)

  • Fraction of energy removed from primary photon energy fluence per unit mass

  • Function of electron density


Terma t r l.jpg

TERMA - T(r’)

  • Product of Ψ(r’) and μ/ρ(r’)

  • Total radiation Energy Released per MAss

  • It represents the total amount of radiation energy available at r’ for deposition


Convolution kernel l.jpg

Convolution Kernel

  • Gives the fraction of the TERMA from a primary interaction point that is deposited to surrounding points

  • Function of photon energy and direction

primary

Iso energy distribution lines.2’ interactions


Convolution superposition algorithm l.jpg

Convolution Superposition Algorithm

  • Convolution equation is modified for actual radiological path length to account for heterogeneities


Pinnacle convolutions l.jpg

Pinnacle Convolutions

  • Collapsed-cone (CC) convolution

    • Most accurate, yet most time consuming

  • Adaptive convolution

    • Based on gradient of TERMA, compromise

  • Fast convolution

    • Useful for beam optimization and rough estimates of dose


Collapsed cone approximation l.jpg

Collapsed cone approximation

  • All energy released from primary photons at elements on an axis of direction is rectilinearly transported and deposited on the axis.

  • Energy that should be deposited in voxel B’ from interactions at the vertex of the lower cone is deposited in voxel B and vice versa.

  • Approximation is less accurate at large distances from cone vertex.

  • Errors are small due to rapid fall-off of point-spread functions


Behavior of dose calculation algorithms near simple geometric heterogeneities l.jpg

Behavior of dose calculation algorithms near simple geometric heterogeneities

  • Fogliatta A., et al. Phys Med Biol. 2007

  • 7 algorithms compared

    • Included Pinnacle and Eclipse

  • Monte Carlo simulations used as benchmark

  • 6 and 15 MV beams

  • Various tissue densities (lung – bone)


Virtual phantom irradiation geometry l.jpg

Virtual phantom/irradiation geometry


Types of algorithms considered l.jpg

Types of algorithms considered

  • Type A: Electron (energy) transport not modeled

  • Type B: Electron transport accounted for (Pinnacle CC and Eclipse AAA).


Depth dose 15 mv 4 cm off axis through light lung several algorithms l.jpg

Depth dose, 15 MV, 4 cm off-axis, through “light lung”, Several algorithms

  • Problems with algorithms that do not model electron transport.

  • Electronic equilibrium? No problem.

  • Better agreement between Pinnacle CC and Monte Carlo than between Eclipse AAA and Monte Carlo.


Conclusions l.jpg

Conclusions

  • Type A algorithms inadequate inside

    • heterogeneous media,

    • esp. for small fields

    • type B algorithms preferable.

  • Pressure should be put on industry to produce more accurate algorithms


Comparison of algorithms in clinical treatment planning l.jpg

Comparison of algorithms in clinical treatment planning

  • Knoos T, et al. Phys Med Biol 2006

  • 5 TPS algorithms compared (A & B)

  • CT plans for prostate, head and neck, breast and lung cases

  • 6 MV - 18 MV photon energies used


Conclusions algorithm comparisons for clinical cases l.jpg

Conclusions – Algorithm comparisons for clinical cases

  • Prostate/Pelvis planning: A or B sufficient

  • Thoracic/Head & Neck – type B recommended

  • Type B generally more accurate in the absence of electronic equilibrium


Monte carlo gambling l.jpg

e-

Monte Carlo(Gambling)

σ

γ

Particle Interaction

Probabilities


Slide39 l.jpg

Monte Carlo

Example:

  • 100 20 MeV photons interacting with water. Interactions:

    • τ, Photoelectric absorption (~0)

    • σ, Compton scatterings (56)

    • π, Pair production events (44)


Monte carlo l.jpg

Monte Carlo


Indirect use of monte carlo l.jpg

Indirect Use of Monte Carlo

  • Energy deposition kernels


Comparisons of algorithms monte carlo and convolution l.jpg

Comparisons of Algorithms Monte Carloand Convolution


Direct monte carlo planning l.jpg

Direct Monte Carlo Planning


Fundamentals linear boltzmann transport equation lbte l.jpg

FundamentalsLinear Boltzmann Transport Equation (LBTE)

Sources

Collision

Streaming

↑direction vector

↑Angular fluence rate

↑position vector

↑particle energy

↑macroscopic total cross section

extrinsic source ↑

↑scattering source

  • Obeys conservation of particles

    • Streaming + collisions = production


Transport examples methods and materials external beam prostate l.jpg

Transport ExamplesMethods and Materials (External beam-Prostate)


Transport examples methods and materials external beam prostate46 l.jpg

Transport ExamplesMethods and Materials (External beam-Prostate)


Transport examples results external beam prostate l.jpg

Transport ExamplesResults (External beam-Prostate)


Transport examples methods and materials brachytherapy hdr l.jpg

Transport ExamplesMethods and Materials (Brachytherapy-HDR)

Dimensions in cm


Results attila s 16 vs mcnpx l.jpg

ResultsAttila (S16) vs. MCNPX

Run time*: 13.7 mins, 97% points w/in 5%, 89% w/in ±3%

*MCNPX: 2300 mins


References 1 2 l.jpg

References (1/2)

The Physics of Radiation Therapy, 2nd Ed., 1994. Faiz M. Khan, Williams and Wilkins.

Batho HF. Lung corrections in cobalt 60 beam therapy. J Can Assn Radiol 1964;15:79.

Young MEJ, Gaylord JD. Experimental tests of corrections for tissue inhomogeneities in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 1970; 43:349.

Sontag MR, Cunningham JR. The equivalent tissue-air ratio method for making absorbed dose calculations in a heterogeneous medium. Radiology 1978;129:787.

Sontag MR, Cunningham JR. Corrections to absorbed dose calculations for tissue inhomogeneities. Med Phys 1977;4:431.

Greene D, Stewart JR. Isodose curves in non-uniform phantoms. Br J Radiol 1965;38:378

Early efforts toward more sophisticated pixel-by-pixel based dose calculation algorithms.

Cunningham JR. Scatter-air ratios. Phys Med Biol 1972;17:42.

Wong JW, Henkelman RM. A new approach to CT pixel-based photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med Phys 1983;10:199.

Krippner K, Wong JW, Harms WB, Purdy JA. The use of an array processor for the delta volume dose computation algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the use of computers in radiation therapy, Scheveningen, The Netherlands. North Holland: The Netherlands, 1987:533.

Kornelson RO, Young MEJ. Changes in the dose-profile of a 10 MV x-ray beam within and beyond low density material. Med Phys 1982;9:114.

Van Esch A, et al., Testing of the analytical anisotropic algorithm for photon dose calculation. Med Phys 2006;33(11):4130-4148.


References 2 2 l.jpg

References (2/2)

  • Fogliatta A, et al. On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52:1363-1385.

  • Knöös T, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006; 51:5785-5807.

  • CC Convolution

  • Ahnesjö A, Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med. Phys. 1989; 16(4):577-592.

  • Mackie TR, Scrimger JW, Battista JJ. A convolution method of calculating dose for 15-MV x-rays. Med Phys 1985; 12:188.

  • Mohan R, Chui C, Lidofsky L. Differential pencil beam dose computation models for photons. Med Phys 1986; 13:64.

  • Lovelock DMJ, Chui CS, Mohan R. A Monte Carlo model of photon beams used in radiation therapy. Med Phys 1995;22:1387.


  • Login