• 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.

• 대한방사선방어학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2010.04a
• /
• pp.124-125
• /
• 2010

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm for dose calculation in a treatment planning system (TPS), CorePLAN$^{TM}$. We implemented beam models for various setup conditions in TPS and calculated radiation dose using CCC algorithm for 6 MV and 15 MV photon beam in $50{\times}50{\times}50cm^3$ water phantom. Field sizes were $4{\times}4cm^2$, $6{\times}6cm^2$, $10{\times}10cm^2$, $20{\times}20cm^2$, $30{\times}30cm^2$ and $40{\times}40cm^2$ and each case was classified as open beam cases and wedged beam cases, respectively. Generated beam models were evaluated by comparing calculated data and measured data of percent depth dose (PDD) and lateral profile. As a result, PDD showed good agreement within approximately 2% in open beam cases and 3% in wedged beam cases except for build-up region and lateral profile also correspond within approximately 1% in field and 4% in penumbra region. On the other hand, the discrepancies were found approximately 4% in wedged beam cases. This study has demonstrated the accuracy of beam model-based CCC algorithm in CorePLAN$^{TM}$ and the most of results from this study were acceptable according to international standards. Although, the area with large dose difference shown in this study was not significant region in clinical field, the result of our study would open the possibility to apply CorePLAN$^{TM}$ into clinical field.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.120-127
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of Mobius3D by comparison with an aSi-based electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and Octavius 4D, which are conventionally used for patient-specific prescription dose verification. Methods: The study was conducted using nine patients who were treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy. To evaluate the feasibility of Mobius3D for prescription dose verification, we compared the QA results of Mobius3D to an aSi-based EPID and the Octavius 4D dose verification methods. The first was the comparison of the Mobius3D verification phantom dose, and the second was to gamma index analysis. Results: The percentage differences between the calculated point dose and measurements from a PTW31010 ion chamber were 1.6%±1.3%, 2.0%±0.8%, and 1.2%±1.2%, using collapsed cone convolution, an analytical anisotropic algorithm, and the AcurosXB algorithm respectively. The average difference was found to be 1.6%±0.3%. Additionally, in the case of using the PTW31014 ion chamber, the corresponding results were 2.0%±1.4%, 2.4%±2.1%, and 1.6%±2.5%, showing an average agreement within 2.0%±0.3%. Considering all the criteria, the Mobius3D result showed that the percentage dose difference from the EPID was within 0.46%±0.34% on average, and the percentage dose difference from Octavius 4D was within 3.14%±2.85% on average. Conclusions: We conclude that Mobius3D can be used interchangeably with phantom-based dosimetry systems, which are commonly used as patient-specific prescription dose verification tools, especially under the conditions of 3%/3 mm and 95% pass rate.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.137-143
• /
• 2013

Purpose: We are to find out the difference of calculated dose of treatment planning system (TPS) and measured dose in case of inhomogeneous organ structure. Materials and Methods: Inhomogeneous phantom is made with solid water phantom and cork plate. CT image of inhomogeneous phantom is acquired. Treatment plan is made with TPS (Pinnacle3 9.2. Royal Philips Electronics, Netherlands) and calculated dose of point of interest is acquired. Treatment plan was delivered in the inhomogeneous phantom by ARTISTE (Siemens AG, Germany) measured dose of each point of interest is obtained with Gafchromic EBT2 film (International Specialty Products, US) in the gap between solid water phantom or cork plate. To simulate lung cancer radiation treatment, artificial tumor target of paraffin is inserted in the cork volume of inhomogeneous phantom. Calculated dose and measured dose are acquired as above. Results: In case of inhomogeneous phantom experiment, dose difference of calculated dose and measured dose is about -8.5% at solid water phantom-cork gap and about -7% lower in measured dose at cork-solid water phantom gap. In case of inhomogeneous phantom inserted paraffin target experiment, dose difference is about 5% lower in measured dose at cork-paraffin gap. There is no significant difference at same material gap in both experiments. Conclusion: Radiation dose at the gap between two organs with different electron density is significantly lower than calculated dose with TPS. Therefore, we must be aware of dose calculation error in TPS and great care is suggested in case of radiation treatment planning on inhomogeneous organ structure.