Evaluating Accuracy of Treatment Planning System Algorithms Using Monte Carlo Simulation in Heterogeneousity of Lung

Document Type : Original Article


1 MS of Nuclear Engineering Medical. Radiation.Department of Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Science and Research Branch, Islamic Zad, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD Engineering Radiation Medicine. Department of Physics, Malek Ashtar University, Tehran, Iran.

3 MS of Medical Physics. Department of Medical Physics, Institute of Cancer Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 MS of Medical Physics.Department of Medical Physics, Institute of Cancer Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.


Background and Objectives: The difference of calculated dose by treatment planning system (TPS) and real dose distribution in patient body is related to calculating algorithms of TPS, and this difference is more evident in heterogeneous tissues like lung. In this study dose distribution was calculated by two algorithms of Isogray TPS and compared to dose distribution calculated by Monte Carlo simulation in water and lung.
Subjects and Methods: In this study, the percentage depth dose (PDD) curves resulting from different algorithms of Isogray TPS were compared by data from simulation in homogeneous water tissue. The difference between dose distribution calculated by Isogray TPS algorithm and CT2MCNP program were obtained and accuracy of mentioned algorithm were evaluated in lung.
Results: Thedifference between simulation results and results of TPS algorithms including collapsed cone, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) convolution and superposition in heterogeneous lung tissue was calculated  5%, 6% and 7%, respectively. In the maximum dose, The obtained difference  was 7 % with  the same algorithms. no significant differences in the water between simulation results and results of TPS algorithms were observed. and the difference was obtained less than 1%.
Conclusion: Inclinical treatment, there was significant difference in dose calculation by TPS algorithm in heterogeneous lung tissue. But this difference was negligible in homogeneous tissues


1-Constine LS, Milano MT, Friedman D. Late Effects of Cancer treatment on Normal Tissues. In: Halperin EC, Perez CA, Brady LW, (Eds.) Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5thed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.P. 320-55.
2-Bucci MK, Bevan A, Roach M 3rd. Advances in radiation therapy: conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and beyond. CA Cancer J Clin 2005Mar-Apr; 55(2): 117-34.
3-Animesh. Advantages of multiple algorithm support in treatment planning system for external beam dose calculations. J Cancer Res Ther 2005Jan-Mar; 1(1): 12-20.
4-Shalek RJ. Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of x or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures. Med Phys 1977; 4(5): 461.
5-Fraas BA, Smathers J, Deye J.  Summary and recommendations of a National Cancer Institute workshop on issues limiting the clinical use of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms for megavoltage external beam radiation therapy. Med Phys 2003Dec; 30(12): 3206–16.
6-Lanchun Lu. Dose calculation algorithms in external beam photon radiation therapy. Int J Cancer Therapy 2013; 1(2): 01025.
7-Ahnesjo A, Aspradakis MM. Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44(11): R99-155.
8- Koons T, Ahnesjo A, Nilsson P, Weber L. Limitations of a pencil beam approach to photon dose calculations in lung tissue. Phys Med Biol 1995Sep; 40(9): 1411-20.
9-Butts JR, Foster AE. Comparison of commercially available three-dimensional treatment planning algorithms for monitor unit calculations in the presence of heterogeneities. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2001; 2(1): 32-41.
10-Krieger T, ASauer O. MonteCarlo-versuspencil-beam-/collapsed-conedosecalculationinaheterogeneousmulti-layerphantom. Phys Med Biol 2005Mar; 50(5): 859-68.
11-Dobler B, Walter C, Knopf A, Fabri D, Loeschel R, Polednik M, "et al". Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms. RadiatOncol 2006Nov; 1: 45.
12-Nisbet A, Beange I, Vollmar HS, Irvine C, Morgan A, Thwaites DI. Dosimetric verification of a commercial collapsed cone algorithm in simulated clinical situations. Radiother Oncol2004; 73(1): 79-88.
13-Hasenbalg F, Neuenschwander H, Mini R, Born EJ. Collapsed cone and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases. Phys Med Biol2007Jul; 52(13): 3679-91.
14-Sharpe MB, Battista JJ. Dose calculations using convolution and superposition principles: The orientation of dose spread kernels in divergent X-ray beams. Med Phys1993Nov-Dec; 20(6): 1685-94.
15-Mackie TR, Scrimger JW, Battista JJ. A convolution method of calculating dose for 15 MV X-rays. Med Phys 1985Mar-Apr; 12 (2): 188-96.

16- Irvine C, Morgan A, Crellin A, Nisbet A, Beange I. The clinical implications of the collapsed cone planning algorithm. ClinOncol (R CollRadiol) 2004Apr; 16 (2): 148-54.

17-Woong Cho. Practical implementation of a collapsed cone convolution algorithm for a radiationtreatment planning system. J Korean Phys Soc 2012Dec; 61(12): 2073-83.

18-Mehranian A, Ay MR,  Zaidi H. CT2MCNP: an integrated package for constructing patient-specific voxel-based phantoms dedicated for MCNP(X) Monte Carlo Code. IFBM 2010; 29: 319-22.