Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 25; no. 2; pp. e14187 - n/a
• Main Authors: Sánchez‐Artuñedo, David, Pié‐Padró, Savannah, Hermida‐López, Marcelino, Duch‐Guillén, Maria Amor, Beltran‐Vilagrasa, Mercè
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-02-2024; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Algorithms; Calibration; Dosimetry; Monte Carlo; Monte Carlo simulation; PerFRACTION; Planning; PRIMO; Radiation Oncology Physics; Radiation therapy; transit dosimetry; validation; United States > US; PerFRACTION; transit dosimetry; Monte Carlo; PRIMO; validation
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14187

Purpose
Transit dosimetry is a safety tool based on the transit images acquired during treatment. Forward‐projection transit dosimetry software, as PerFRACTION, compares the transit images acquired with an expected image calculated from the DICOM plan, the CT, and the structure set. This work aims to validate PerFRACTION expected transit dose using PRIMO Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements, and propose a methodology based on MPPG5a report.
Methods
The validation process was divided into three groups of tests according to MPPG5a: basic dose validation, IMRT dose validation, and heterogeneity correction validation. For the basic dose validation, the fields used were the nine fields needed to calibrate PerFRACTION and three jaws‐defined. For the IMRT dose validation, seven sweeping gaps fields, the MLC transmission and 29 IMRT fields from 10 breast treatment plans were measured. For the heterogeneity validation, the transit dose of these fields was studied using three phantoms: 10 , 30 , and a 3 cm cork slab placed between 10 cm of solid water. The PerFRACTION expected doses were compared with PRIMO Monte Carlo simulation results and ionization chamber measurements.
Results
Using the 10 cm solid water phantom, for the basic validation fields, the root mean square (RMS) of the difference between PerFRACTION and PRIMO simulations was 0.6%. In the IMRT fields, the RMS of the difference was 1.2%. When comparing respect ionization chamber measurements, the RMS of the difference was 1.0% both for the basic and the IMRT validation. The average passing rate with a γ(2%/2 mm, TH = 20%) criterion between PRIMO dose distribution and PerFRACTION expected dose was 96.0% ± 5.8%.
Conclusion
We validated PerFRACTION calculated transit dose with PRIMO Monte Carlo and ionization chamber measurements adapting the methodology of the MMPG5a report. The methodology presented can be applied to validate other forward‐projection transit dosimetry software.