06.06.2013 Views

SCIENTIFIC REPORT 2010 - 2011 - IOV

SCIENTIFIC REPORT 2010 - 2011 - IOV

SCIENTIFIC REPORT 2010 - 2011 - IOV

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Major Ongoing Research Projects<br />

The Medical Physics Unit has been recently involved in two<br />

projects concerning the verification of the accuracy of the dose<br />

distribution calculated by a commercial treatment planning<br />

system.<br />

COmmiSSiONiNG SiEmENS virTual wEDGES iN ThE<br />

ONCENTra TrEaTmENT plaNNiNG SySTEm uSiNG<br />

GafChrOmiC EbT film<br />

Principal investigator: Franca Simonato<br />

Contributors: Roberto Fabbris, Alice Ferretti, Sonia Reccanello,<br />

Roberto Zandonà<br />

Purpose. Virtual Wedges were introduced in Siemens<br />

LINAC to improve the treatment workflow. The aim of the work<br />

was the validation of dose calculation by MasterPlan-Oncentra<br />

treatment planning system for virtual wedged beams.<br />

Methods. The Oncor Siemens accelerator installed in the<br />

Radiation Therapy Unit produces 6 and 15 MV photon beams.<br />

At first, the consistency of VW LINAC production was tested and<br />

the EBT film measuring method was verified. Then, the measured<br />

and calculated wedge factors and beam profiles were compared.<br />

For 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60° wedge angles, the wedge factors for<br />

different field sizes were measured by an ionization chamber and<br />

the dose profiles acquired by Gafchromic EBT film.<br />

Results. The comparison between measured and calculated VW<br />

factors shows discrepancies that increase with field size and angle.<br />

The OTP Enhanced algorithm fits better with measurements than<br />

the Classic one, with overall improvement visible for large angles.<br />

The agreement between measured and planned beam profiles is<br />

within the limits reported by the ESTRO Booklet No. 7 in terms<br />

of confidence limits.<br />

Conclusions. The MasterPlan-Oncentra treatment planning<br />

system determines wedge factors and VW profiles within the<br />

requested accuracy in the majority of treatment conditions. For<br />

big field dimensions and wedge angle, wedge factor accordance<br />

was worse, but it could be increased with an improvement of the<br />

LINAC dosimetric board calibration.<br />

COmmiSSiONiNG Of a COmmErCial TpS baSED ON ThE<br />

vmC++ mC CODE fOr ElECTrON bEamS: valiDaTiON<br />

aND COmpariSON wiTh EGSNrC<br />

Principal Investigator: Andrea Martignano<br />

Contributors: Alice Ferretti, Franca Simonato<br />

Purpose. Some commercial TPS already use MC engines<br />

for dose calculation. The aim of this work was to perform the<br />

commissioning of the VMC++ Monte Carlo (MC) engine<br />

implemented in the Oncentra Masterplan TPS for electron dose<br />

calculation, and to verify its accuracy comparing the results to the<br />

EGSnrc MC code.<br />

Methods. The commissioning procedure for the TPS consists<br />

of measurements of output factors and profiles in x,y and z<br />

direction, in both air and water. The BEAMnrc MC code was<br />

used as a benchmark: BEAMnrc required the geometries of the<br />

LINAC head, which were provided by Siemens; the optimisation<br />

was done considering PDD and profiles in water. Commissioning<br />

results were evaluated by means of 1D Gamma Analysis (2%,<br />

2mm), calculated with a home-made Matlab program.<br />

Masterplan dose distribution maps were compared to the<br />

results of BEAMnrc, in two virtual phantoms: one made of<br />

water with an air insert, and the second with a bone insert. The<br />

comparison was done by means of 2D Gamma Analysis (3%,<br />

3mm), and comparing significant profiles and PDD.<br />

Results and conclusions. The results of the commissioning<br />

of the TPS were good. The optimisation of the BEAMnrc model<br />

of the LINAC required the modification of some components to<br />

match the calculated and measured profiles: the final agreement<br />

was very good. The agreement of the dose distributions calculated<br />

with the TPS and with EGSnrc with the air-insert phantom was<br />

high; with the bone-insert phantom there were differences of<br />

about 10-15% in the bone region. This is due to the fact that<br />

the Masterplan implementation of VMC++ reports the dose as<br />

“dose to water”, instead of “dose to medium” (therefore it is not a<br />

dosimetric error).<br />

THE DEPARTMENTS - DEPARTMENT OF RADIOTHERAPY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE<br />

123

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!