• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.54-62
• /
• 2020

Dose calculation algorithms play an important role in radiation therapy and are even the basis for optimizing treatment plans, an important feature in the development of complex treatment technologies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy. We reviewed the past and current status of dose calculation algorithms used in the treatment planning system for radiation therapy. The radiation-calculating dose calculation algorithm can be broadly classified into three main groups based on the mechanisms used: (1) factor-based, (2) model-based, and (3) principle-based. Factor-based algorithms are a type of empirical dose calculation that interpolates or extrapolates the dose in some basic measurements. Model-based algorithms, represented by the pencil beam convolution, analytical anisotropic, and collapse cone convolution algorithms, use a simplified physical process by using a convolution equation that convolutes the primary photon energy fluence with a kernel. Model-based algorithms allowing side scattering when beams are transmitted to the heterogeneous media provide more precise dose calculation results than correction-based algorithms. Principle-based algorithms, represented by Monte Carlo dose calculations, simulate all real physical processes involving beam particles during transportation; therefore, dose calculations are accurate but time consuming. For approximately 70 years, through the development of dose calculation algorithms and computing technology, the accuracy of dose calculation seems close to our clinical needs. Next-generation dose calculation algorithms are expected to include biologically equivalent doses or biologically effective doses, and doctors expect to be able to use them to improve the quality of treatment in the near future.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2003.09a
• /
• pp.41-41
• /
• 2003

Purpose: Even if the wedge filter is widely used for the radiation therapy to modify the photon beam intensity, the wedged photon beam dose calculation is not so easy. Radiation therapy planning systems (RTPS) have been used the empirical or semi-analytical methods such as attenuation method using wedge filter parameters or wedge filter factor obtained from measurement. However, these methods can cause serious error in penumbra region as well as in edge region. In this study, we propose the dose calculation algorithm for wedged field to minimize the error especially in the outer beam region. Materials and Method: Modified intensity by wedge filter was calculated using tissue-maximum ratio (TMR) and scatter-maximum ratio (SMR) of wedged field. Profiles of wedged and non-wedged direction was also used. The result of new dose calculation was compared with measurement and the result from attenuation method. Results: Proposed algorithm showed the good agreement with measurement in the high dose-gradient region as well as in the inner beam region. The error was decreased comparing to attenuation method. Conclusion: Although necessary beam data for the RTPS commissioning was increased, new algorithm would guarantee the improved dose calculation accuracy for wedged field. In future, this algorithm could be adopted in RTPS.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.17 no.5
• /
• pp.633-640
• /
• 2023

With the recent development of static and dynamic modulated brachytherapy methods in brachytherapy, which use radiation shielding to modulate the dose distribution to deliver the dose, the amount of parameters and data required for dose calculation in inverse treatment planning and treatment plan optimization algorithms suitable for new directional beam intensity modulated brachytherapy is increasing. Although intensity-modulated brachytherapy enables accurate dose delivery of radiation, the increased amount of parameters and data increases the elapsed time required for dose calculation. In this study, a GPU-based CUDA-accelerated dose calculation algorithm was constructed to reduce the increase in dose calculation elapsed time. The acceleration of the calculation process was achieved by parallelizing the calculation of the system matrix of the volume of interest and the dose calculation. The developed algorithms were all performed in the same computing environment with an Intel (3.7 GHz, 6-core) CPU and a single NVIDIA GTX 1080ti graphics card, and the dose calculation time was evaluated by measuring only the dose calculation time, excluding the additional time required for loading data from disk and preprocessing operations. The results showed that the accelerated algorithm reduced the dose calculation time by about 30 times compared to the CPU-only calculation. The accelerated dose calculation algorithm can be expected to speed up treatment planning when new treatment plans need to be created to account for daily variations in applicator movement, such as in adaptive radiotherapy, or when dose calculation needs to account for changing parameters, such as in dynamically modulated brachytherapy.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.103-114
• /
• 1999

In this study, as a preliminary study for developing a full 3D photon dose calculation algorithm, We developed 2.5D photon dose calculation algorithm by extending 2D calculation algorithm to allow non-coplanar configurations of photon beams. For this purpose, we defined the 3d patient coordinate system and the 3d beam coordinate system, which are appropriate to 3d treatment planning and dose calculation. and then, calculate a transformation matrix between them. For dose calculation, we extended 2d "Clarkson-Cunningham" model to 3d one, which can calculate wedge fields as well as regular and irregular fields on arbitrary plane. The simple Batho's power-law method was implemented as an inhomogeneity correction. We evaluated the accuracy of our dose model following procedures of AAPM TG#23; radiation treatment planning dosimetry verifications for 4MV of Varian Clinac-4. As results, PDDs (percent depth dose) of cubic fields, the accuracy of calculation are within 1% except buildup region, and $\pm$3% for irregular fields and wedge fields. And for 45$^{\circ}$ oblique incident beam, the deviations between measurements and calculations are within $\pm$4%. In the case of inhomogeneity correction, the calculation underestimate 7% at the lung/water boundary and overestimate 3% at the bone/water boundary. At the conclusions, we found out our model can predict dose with 5% accuracy at the general condition. we expect our model can be used as a tool for educational and research purpose.. purpose..

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.180-188
• /
• 2016

Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (AXB, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) has been released recently and provided the advantages of speed and accuracy for dose calculation. For clinical use, it is important to investigate the dosimetric performance of AXB compared to the calculation algorithm of the previous version, Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Ten volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for each of the following cases were included: head and neck (H&N), prostate, spine, and lung. The spine and lung cases were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) technique. For all cases, the dose distributions were calculated using AAA and two dose reporting modes in AXB (dose-to-water, $AXB_w$, and dose-to-medium, $AXB_m$) with same plan parameters. For dosimetric evaluation, the dose-volumetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and interested normal organs. The differences between AAA and AXB were statistically calculated with paired t-test. As a general trend, $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ showed dose underestimation as compared with AAA, which did not exceed within -3.5% and -4.5%, respectively. The maximum dose of PTV calculated by $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ was tended to be overestimated with the relative dose difference ranged from 1.6% to 4.6% for all cases. The absolute mean values of the relative dose differences were $1.1{\pm}1.2%$ and $2.0{\pm}1.2%$ when comparing between AAA and $AXB_w$, and AAA and $AXB_m$, respectively. For almost dose-volumetric parameters of PTV, the relative dose differences are statistically significant while there are no statistical significance for normal tissues. Both $AXB_w$ and $AXB_m$ was tended to underestimate dose for PTV and normal tissues compared to AAA. For analyzing two dose reporting modes in AXB, the dose distribution calculated by $AXB_w$ was similar to those of AAA when comparing the dose distributions between AAA and $AXB_m$.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.54 no.5
• /
• pp.1769-1780
• /
• 2022

A new method of dose calculation algorithm, called GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and collapsed cone Convolution (GMCC) was developed to improve the calculation speed of BNCT treatment planning system. The GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo routine in GMCC is used to simulate the neutron transport over whole energy range and the Collapsed Cone Convolution method is to calculate the gamma dose. Other dose components due to alpha particles and protons, are calculated using the calculated neutron flux and reaction data. The mathematical principle and the algorithm architecture are introduced. The accuracy and performance of the GMCC were verified by comparing with the FLUKA results. A water phantom and a head CT voxel model were simulated. The neutron flux and the absorbed dose obtained by the GMCC were consistent well with the FLUKA results. In the case of head CT voxel model, the mean absolute percentage error for the neutron flux and the absorbed dose were 3.98% and 3.91%, respectively. The calculation speed of the absorbed dose by the GMCC was 56 times faster than the FLUKA code. It was verified that the GMCC could be a good candidate tool instead of the Monte Carlo method in the BNCT dose calculations.

• 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.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.130-136
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The Halcyon radiotherapy platform at Groote Schuur Hospital was delivered with a factory-configured analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) beam model for dose calculation. In a recent system upgrade, the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was installed. Both algorithms adopt fundamentally different approaches to dose calculation. This study aimed to compare the dose distributions of cervical carcinoma RapidArc plans calculated using both algorithms. Methods: A total of 15 plans previously calculated using the AAA were retrieved and recalculated using the AXB algorithm. Comparisons were performed using the planning target volume (PTV) maximum (max) and minimum (min) doses, D95%, D98%, D50%, D2%, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI). The mean and max doses and D2% were compared for the bladder, bowel, and femoral heads. Results: The AAA calculated slightly higher targets, D98%, D95%, D50%, and CI, than the AXB algorithm (44.49 Gy vs. 44.32 Gy, P=0.129; 44.87 Gy vs. 44.70 Gy, P=0.089; 46.00 Gy vs. 45.98 Gy, P=0.154; and 0.51 vs. 0.50, P=0.200, respectively). For target min dose, D2%, max dose, and HI, the AAA scored lower than the AXB algorithm (41.24 Gy vs. 41.30 Gy, P=0.902; 47.34 Gy vs. 47.75 Gy, P<0.001; 48.62 Gy vs. 50.14 Gy, P<0.001; and 0.06 vs. 0.07, P=0.002, respectively). For bladder, bowel, and left and right femurs, the AAA calculated higher mean and max doses. Conclusions: Statistically significant differences were observed for PTV D2%, max dose, HI, and bowel max dose (P>0.05).