Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:27:33.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of BrachyDose Monte Carlo code for HDR brachytherapy: dose comparison against Acuros®BV and TG-43 algorithms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2019

Ayse Dagli Open the ORCID record for Ayse Dagli [Opens in a new window] ,
Fatma Yurt  and
Gultekin Yegin Open the ORCID record for Gultekin Yegin [Opens in a new window]
Ayse Dagli*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Marmara University Pendik Education and Research Hospital, 34899, Istanbul, Turkey
Fatma Yurt
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Applications, Institute of Nuclear Science, Ege University, 35100 Izmir, Turkey
Gultekin Yegin
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Letters, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45140 Manisa, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Ayse Dagli, Department of Radiation Oncology, Marmara University Pendik Education and Research Hospital, Muhsin Yazicioglu str. No: 8, 34899 Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy of dose distributions calculated by the BrachyDose Monte Carlo (MC) code in heterogeneous media for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and to evaluate its usability in the clinical brachytherapy treatment planning systems.

Materials and methods:

For dose comparisons, three different dose calculation algorithms were used in this study. Namely, BrachyDose MC code, Eclipse TG-43 dose calculation tool and Acuros®BV model-based dose calculation algorithm (MBDCA). Dose distributions were obtained using any of the above codes in various scenarios including ‘homogenous water medium scenario’, an ‘extreme case heterogeneous media scenario’ and clinically important ‘a patient with a cervical cancer scenario’. In the ‘extreme case, heterogeneous media scenario’, geometry is a rare combination of unusual high-density and low-density materials and it is chosen to provide a test environment for the propagation of photons in the interface of two materials with different absorption and scattering properties. GammaMed 192Ir Model 12i Source is used as the HDR brachytherapy source in this study. Dose calculations were performed for the cases where there is either a single source or five sources planted into the phantom geometry in all homogenous water phantom and extreme case heterogeneous media scenarios. For the scenario a patient with a cervical cancer, dose calculations were performed in a voxelized rectilinear phantom, which is constructed from a series of computed tomography (CT) slices of a patient, which are obtained from a CT device.

Results:

In homogeneous water phantom scenario, we observed no statistically significant dose differences among the dose distributions calculated by any of the three algorithms at almost every point in the geometry. In the extreme case heterogeneous media scenario, the dose calculation engines Acuros®BV and BrachyDose are agreed well within statistics in every region of the geometry and even in the points close to the interfaces of low-density and high-density materials. On the other hand, the dose values calculated by these two codes are significantly different from those calculated by the TG-43 algorithm. In the ‘a patient with a cervical cancer scenario’, the calculated D2cc dose difference between Acuros®BV and BrachyDose codes is within 2% in the rectum and 11% for the bladder and sigmoid. There was no meaningful difference in the mean dose values between MBDCAs in the bone structures.

Conclusions:

In this study, the accurate dose calculation capabilities of the BrachyDose program in HDR brachytherapy were investigated on various scenarios and, as a MC dose calculation tool, its effectiveness in HDR brachytherapy was demonstrated by comparative dose analysis.

Keywords

AcurosBValgorithmsBrachyDosebrachytherapyMonte Carlo
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 76 - 83
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rivard, M J, Coursey, B M, DeWerd, L A, et al. Update of AAPM task group no. 43 report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys 2004; 31: 633–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nath, R, Anderson, L L, Luxton, G, Weaver, K A, Williamson, J F, Meigooni, A S. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys 1995; 22: 209–234.Google ScholarPubMed
Rivard, M., Butler, W M, DeWerd, L A, et al. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM task group No. 43 report. Med Phys 2007; 34: 2187–2205.Google ScholarPubMed
Landry, G, Reniers, B, Murrer, L, et al. Sensitivity of low energy brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations to uncertainties in human tissue composition. Med Phys 2010; 37: 5188–5198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, S M, Wu, CH, Lee, JH, et al. A study on the dose distributions in various materials from an Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy source. PLoS One 2012; 7: e44528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, L, Carlsson Tedgren, A, Carrier, J F, et al. Report of the task group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med Phys 2012; 39: 6208–6236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yegin, G, Rogers, D W O. A fast Monte Carlo code for multi-seed brachytherapy treatments including interseed effects. Med Phys 2004; 31: 1771.Google Scholar
Mainegra-Hing, E, Rogers, D W O, Tessier, F, et al. The EGSnrc code system: Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. 2013; NRCC Report PIRS-701, 128–149.Google Scholar
Yegin, G. A new approach to geometry modeling for Monte Carlo particle transport: an application to the EGS code system. Nucl Instr Meth 2003; B211: 331–338.Google Scholar
Taylor, R E P, Yegin, G, Rogers, D W O. Benchmarking BrachyDose: voxel based EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculations of TG-43 dosimetry parameters. Med Phys 2007; 34 (2): 445–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daskalov, M, Baker, R S, Rogers, D W O, et al. Dosimetric modeling of the microselectron high-dose rate 192Ir source by the multigroup discrete ordinates method. Med Phys 2000; 27: 2307–2319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daskalov, G M, Baker, R S, Rogers, D W O, Williamson, J F. Multigroup discrete ordinates modeling of 125I 6702 seed dose distributions using a broad energy-group cross section representation. Med Phys 2002; 29: 113–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gifford, K A, Horton, J L, Wareing, T A, Failla, G, Mourtada, F. Comparison of a finite-element multigroup discrete-ordinates Code with Monte Carlo for radiotherapy calculations. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51: 2253–2265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gifford, K A, Price, M J, Horton, J L, Wareing, T A, Mourtada, F. Optimization of deterministic transport parameters for the calculation of the dose distribution around a high dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy source. Med Phys 2008; 35: 2279–2285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moura, E S, Micka, J A, Hammer, C G, et al. Development of a phantom to validate high-dose-rate brachytherapy treatment planning systems with heterogeneous algorithms. Med Phys 2015; 42: 1566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fonseca, G P, Antunes, P C G, Yoriyaz, H, Reniers, B, Verhaegen, F. A brachytherapy model-based dose calculation algorithm-AMIGOBrachy. International Nuclear Atlantic Conference, Recife, PE, Brazil, November, 2013; 45: 24–29.Google Scholar
Fonseca, G P, Reniers, B, Landry, G, et al. A medical image-based graphical platform-features, applications and relevance for brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2014; 13: 632–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pantelis, E, Peppa, V, Lahanas, V, Pappas, E, Papagiannis, P. BrachyGuide: a brachytherapy-dedicated DICOM RT viewer and interface to Monte Carlo simulation software. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (1): 2018–2218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRU. Dose and volume speci®cation for reporting intracavitary therapy in gynaecology. ICRU report 38. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1985.Google Scholar
Mikell, J K, Klopp, A H, Gonzalez, G M N, et al. Impact of heterogeneity-based dose calculation using a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for intracavitary brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (3): 417–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez-Calatayud, J, Ballester, F, Das, R K, et al. Dose calculation for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV: full report of the AAPM and ESTRO. Med Phys 2012; 39(5): 2904–2929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R E P, Rogers, D W O. EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculated dosimetry parameters for 192Ir and 169Yb brachytherapy sources. Med Phys 2008; 35 (11): 4933–4944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorence, L, Morel, J, Valdez, G. Physics guide to CEPXS: a multigroup coupled electron-photon cross section generating code. Sandia National Laboratory Report No. SAND89–1685, 1989.Google Scholar
Landry, G, Reniers, B, Pignol, J P, Beaulieu, L, Verhaegen, F. The difference of scoring dose to water or tissues in Monte Carlo dose calculations for low energy brachytherapy photon sources. Med Phys 2011; 38 (3): 1526–1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, B, Kawrakow, I, Rogers, D W O. DOSXYZnrc users manual. 2006 NRCC Technical Report PIRS-794; 95–97.Google Scholar