• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.304-310
• /
• 2010

Less execution of the electron arc treatment could in large part be attributed to the lack of an adequate planning system. Unlike most linear accelerators providing the electron arc mode, no commercial planning systems for the electron arc plan are available at this time. In this work, with the expectation that an easily accessible planning system could promote electron arc therapy, a commercial planning system was commissioned and evaluated for the electron arc plan. For the electron arc plan with use of a Varian 21-EX, Pinnacle3 (ver. 7.4f), with an electron pencil beam algorithm, was commissioned in which the arc consisted of multiple static fields with a fixed beam opening. Film dosimetry and point measurements were executed for the evaluation of the computation. Beam modeling was not satisfactory with the calculation of lateral profiles. Contrary to good agreement within 1% of the calculated and measured depth profiles, the calculated lateral profiles showed underestimation compared with measurements, such that the distance-to-agreement (DTA) was 5.1 mm at a 50% dose level for 6 MeV and 6.7 mm for 12 MeV with similar results for the measured depths. Point and film measurements for the humanoid phantom revealed that the delivered dose was more than the calculation by approximately 10%. The electron arc plan, based on the pencil beam algorithm, provides qualitative information for the dose distribution. Dose verification before the treatment should be mandatory.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.106-113
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variation of radiation dose distribution for liver tumor located in liver dome and for the interest organs(normal liver, kidney, stomach) with the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm versus anisotropic Analyticalal algorithm (AAA) of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, The target volumes from 20 liver cancer patients were used to create treatment plans. Treatment plans for 10 patients were performed in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) plan and others were performed in 3 Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) plan. dose calculation was recalculated by AAA algorithm after dose calculation was performed by PBC algorithm for 20 patients. Plans were optimized to 100% of the PTV by the Prescription Isodose in Dose Calculation with the PBC algorithm. Plans were recalculated with the AAA, retaining identical beam arrangements, monitor units, field weighting and collimator condition. In this study, Total PTV was to be statistically significant (SRS: p=0.018, 3DCRT: p=0.006) between PBC and AAA algorithm. and in the case of PTV, ITV in liver dome, plans for 3DCRT were to be statistically significant respectively (p=0.013, p=0.024). normal liver and kidney were to be statistically significant (p=0.009, p=0.037). For the predictive index of dose variation, CVF ratio was to be statistically significant for PTV in the liver dome versus PTV (SRS r=0.684, 3DCRT r=0.732, p<0.01) and CVF ratio for Tumor size was to be statistically significant (SRS r=-0.193, p=0.017, 3DCRT r=0.237, p=0.023).

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.291-293
• /
• 2002

Accurate dose calculation in radiation treatment planning is most important for successful treatment. Since human body is composed of various materials and not an ideal shape, it is not easy to calculate the accurate effective dose in the patients. Many methods have been proposed to solve the inhomogeneity and surface contour problems. Monte Carlo simulations are regarded as the most accurate method, but it is not appropriate for routine planning because it takes so much time. Pencil beam kernel based convolution/superposition methods were also proposed to correct those effects. Nowadays, many commercial treatment planning systems, including Pinnacle and Helax-TMS, have adopted this algorithm as a dose calculation engine. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of the dose calculated from pencil beam kernel based treatment planning system Helax-TMS comparing to Monte Carlo simulations and measurements especially in inhomogeneous region. Home-made inhomogeneous phantom, Helax-TMS ver. 6.0 and Monte Carlo code BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc were used in this study. Dose calculation results from TPS and Monte Carlo simulation were verified by measurements. In homogeneous media, the accuracy was acceptable but in inhomogeneous media, the errors were more significant.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.133-140
• /
• 1999

In this paper, as a preliminary study for developing a full 3D electron dose calculation algorithm, We developed 2.5D electron dose calculation algorithm by extending 2D pencil-beam model to consider three dimensional geometry such as air-gap and obliquity appropriately. The dose calculation algorithm was implemented using the IDL5.2(Research Systems Inc., USA), For calculation of the Hogstrom's pencil-beam algorithm, the measured data of the central-axis depth-dose for 12 MeV(Siemens M6740) and the linear stopping power and the linear scattering power of water and air from ICRU report 35 was used. To evaluate the accuracy of the implemented program, we compared the calculated dose distribution with the film measurements in the three situations; the normal incident beam, the 45$^{\circ}$ oblique incident beam, and the beam incident on the pit-shaped phantom. As results, about 120 seconds had been required on the PC (Pentium III 450MHz) to calculate dose distribution of a single beam. It needs some optimizing methods to speed up the dose calculation. For the accuracy of dose calculation, in the case of the normal incident beam of the regular and irregular shaped field, at the rapid dose gradient region of penumbra, the errors were within $\pm$3 mm and the dose profiles were agreed within 5%. However, the discrepancy between the calculation and the measurement were about 10% for the oblique incident beam and the beam incident on the pit-shaped phantom. In conclusions, we expended 2D pencil-beam algorithm to take into account the three dimensional geometry of the patient. And also, as well as the dose calculation of irregular field, the irregular shaped body contour and the air-gap could be considered appropriately in the implemented program. In the near future, the more accurate algorithm will be implemented considering inhomogeneity correction using CT, and at that time, the program can be used as a tool for educational and research purpose. This study was supported by a grant (＃HMP-98-G-1-016) of the HAN(Highly Advanced National) Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, R.O.K.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.208-210
• /
• 2002

In a treatment planning for actual patients with a complex internal structure, we often expect that proton beams, which pass through both a bolus and the heterogeneity in body, will form complex dose distributions. Therefore, the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions has to be verified for such a complex object. Then dose distributions formed by proton beams passing through both the bolus and phantoms simulating a clinical heterogeneity in patients were measured using a silicon semiconductor detector. The calculated results by the range-modulated pencil beam algorithm (RMPBA) produced large errors compared with the measured dose distributions since dose calculation using the RMPBA could not predict accurately the edge-scattering effect both in the bolus and in clinical heterogeneous phantoms. On the other hand, in spite of this troublesome heterogeneity, calculated results by the simplified Monte Carlo (SMC) method reproduced the experimental ones well. It is obvious that the dose-calculations by the SMC method will be more useful for application to the treatment planning for proton therapy.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.298-299
• /
• 2002

WERC (Wakasa Wan Energy Research Center) has started the proton cancer therapy since June 2002. We use Hitachi 3D treatment planning (version 1.6) that can calculate the proton dose distribution by use of the pencil beam algorithm as well as the broad beam algorithm practically fast. This treatment planning software satisfies almost functions required in the proton therapy and includes some advanced techniques such as the 3D region glowing function that can search the target region three-dimensionally based on the CT-values. In this paper, we will introduce this planning system and present our evaluation from point of view of both clinical usage and QA.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 1999.11a
• /
• pp.220-221
• /
• 1999

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.11-14
• /
• 2012

Purpose: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) provides more accurate dose calculation regarding impact on scatter and tissue inhomogeneity in comparison to Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) algorithm. This study tries to analyze the difference of dose distribution according to PBC algorithm and dose calculation algorithm of AAA on breast cancer tangential plan. Materials and Methods: Computerized medical care plan using Eclipse treatment planning system (version 8.9, VARIAN, USA) has been established for the 10 breast cancer patients using 6 MV energy of Linac (CL-6EX, VARIAN, USA). After treatment plan of Conventional Radiation Therapy plan (Conventional plan) and Field-in-Field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy plan (FiF plan) using PBC algorithm has been established, MU has been fixed, implemented dose calculation after changing it to AAA, and compared and analyzed treatment plan using Dose Volume Histogram (DVH). Results: Firstly, as a result of evaluating PBC algorithm of Conventional plan and the difference according to AAA, the average difference of CI value on target volume has been highly estimated by 0.295 on PBC algorithm and as a result of evaluating dose of lung, $V_{47Gy}$ and $V_{45Gy}$ has been highly evaluated by 5.83% and 4.04% each, Mean dose, $V_{20Gy}$, $V_{5Gy}$, $V_{3Gy}$ has been highly evaluated 0.6%, 0.29%, 6.35%, 10.23% each on AAA. Secondly, in case of FiF plan, the average difference of CI value on target volume has been highly evaluated on PBC algorithm by 0.165, and dose on ipsilateral lung, $V_{47Gy}$, $V_{45Gy}$, Mean dose has been highly evaluated 6.17%, 3.80%, 0.15% each on PBC algorithm, $V_{20Gy}$, $V_{5Gy}$, $V_{3Gy}$ has been highly evaluated 0.14%, 4.07%, 4.35% each on AAA. Conclusion: When calculating with AAA on breast cancer tangential plan, compared to PBC algorithm, Conformity on target volume of Conventional plan, FiF plan has been less evaluated by 0.295, 0.165 each. For the reason that dose of high dose region of ipsilateral lung has been showed little amount, and dose of low dose region has been showed much amount, features according to dose calculation algorithm need to be considered when we evaluate dose for the lungs.

• The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers
• /
• v.66 no.8
• /
• pp.1242-1249
• /
• 2017

In this paper, we propose a new algorithm for the performance analysis of the sidelobe blanker (SLB) in radar system, which is based on the matrix pencil method (MPM). In general, the SLB in radar is composed of the main antenna, the auxiliary antenna, and the processing unit. The auxiliary antenna with wide beamwidth receives interference signals such as jamming or clutter signals. The main antenna with high gain receives the target signal in the main beam and the interference signals in the sidelobe. In this paper the Swerling model is used as the target echo signal by considering a probabilistic radar cross section (RCS) of the target. To estimate the SLB performance it needs to calculate the probability of target detection and the probability of blanking the interference by using the signals received from the main and auxiliary antennas. The detection probability and the blanking probability include multiple summations of infinite series with infinite integrations, of which convergence rate is very slow. Increase of summation range to improve the calculation accuracy may lead to an overflow error in computer simulations. In this paper, to resolve the above problems, we used the MPM to calculate a summation of infinite series and improved the calculation accuracy and the convergence rate.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 2012

Purpose: Analyze the Effectiveness of Radiation Treatment Planning by dose calculation and optimization algorithm, apply consideration of actual treatment planning, and then suggest the best way to treatment planning protocol. Materials and Methods: The treatment planning system use Eclipse 10.0. (Varian, USA). PBC (Pencil Beam Convolution) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm) Apply to Dose calculation, DVO (Dose Volume Optimizer 10.0.28) used for optimized algorithm of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), PRO II (Progressive Resolution Optimizer V 8.9.17) and PRO III (Progressive Resolution Optimizer V 10.0.28) used for optimized algorithm of VAMT. A phantom for experiment virtually created at treatment planning system, $30{\times}30{\times}30$ cm sized, homogeneous density (HU: 0) and heterogeneous density that inserted air assumed material (HU: -1,000). Apply to clinical treatment planning on the basis of general treatment planning feature analyzed with Phantom planning. Results: In homogeneous density phantom, PBC and AAA show 65.2% PDD (6 MV, 10 cm) both, In heterogeneous density phantom, also show similar PDD value before meet with low density material, but they show different dose curve in air territory, PDD 10 cm showed 75%, 73% each after penetrate phantom. 3D treatment plan in same MU, AAA treatment planning shows low dose at Lung included area. 2D POP treatment plan with 15 MV of cervical vertebral region include trachea and lung area, Conformity Index (ICRU 62) is 0.95 in PBC calculation and 0.93 in AAA. DVO DVH and Dose calculation DVH are showed equal value in IMRT treatment plan. But AAA calculation shows lack of dose compared with DVO result which is satisfactory condition. Optimizing VMAT treatment plans using PRO II obtained results were satisfactory, but lower density area showed lack of dose in dose calculations. PRO III, but optimizing the dose calculation results were similar with optimized the same conditions once more. Conclusion: In this study, do not judge the rightness of the dose calculation algorithm. However, analyzing the characteristics of the dose distribution represented by each algorithm, especially, a method for the optimal treatment plan can be presented when make a treatment plan. by considering optimized algorithm factors of the IMRT or VMAT that needs to optimization make a treatment plan.