Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2025
Validation of a Monte Carlo-based dose calculation engine including the 1.5 T magnetic field for independent dose-check in MRgRT.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ruggieri Ruggero, Bianchi Nicola, Gurrera Davide, Naccarato Stefania, Borgese Riccardo Filippo, Simone Antonio De, Sicignano Gianluisa, Stavrev Pavel, Stavreva Nadejda, Pellegrini Roberto, Rigo Michele, Ricchetti Francesco, Nicosia Luca, Giaj-Levra Niccolò, Pastorello Edoardo, Allegra Andrea, De-Colle Chiara, Alongi Filippo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Adaptive MRgRT by 1.5 T MR-linac requires independent verification of the plan-of-the-day by the primary TPS (MonacoTM) (M). Here we validated a Monte Carlo-based dose-check including the magnetostatic field, SciMoCaTM (S).
METHODS: M and S were validated first in water, by comparison with commissioning-dosimetry. PDD(2x2cm2) through a lung(air)-equivalent virtual-slab was then calculated. Clinical validation retrospectively included 161 SBRT plans, from five patients per-site: Pelvic-Nodes, Prostate, Liver, Pancreas, and Lungs. S-minus-M percentage differences (Δ%) were computed for target- and OARs-related dose-volume metrics. In-phantom dose verification per-patient was performed.
RESULTS: γ(2 %,1mm)-passing-rates (PR%) of in-water-computed PDD and transverse-dose-profiles vs. commissioning-dosimetry were (99.1 ± 2.0)% for M, and (99.3 ± 1.5)% for S. Calculated output-factors (OF) were typically within 1 % from measurements, except for OF(1x1cm2) which was misestimated by -4.4 % and + 2.2 %, by M and S respectively. Dose spikes (valleys) on the PDD(2x2cm2) by S across the lung-equivalent virtual-slab were slightly reduced with respect to M. In clinical plans, S computed higher V95% (p <0.05*, for pancreas and lung) and D2% (p <0.05*, for all sites) for the target, while D%>2% resulted for duodenal D(1cm3), in Pancreas-SBRT, and for mean-lung-dose, in Lung-SBRT. All mostly due to the underestimated OF(1x1cm2) by M. In-phantom dose verifications showed an average 1% increase in PR% by S vs. M.
CONCLUSIONS: Beam-model quality in S resulted equivalent to M, thus making S useful both for an independent validation of the same beam-model in M, and for a daily validation of the M-based online approval decisions, without significantly delaying the clinical workflow (2-3 min).
METHODS: M and S were validated first in water, by comparison with commissioning-dosimetry. PDD(2x2cm2) through a lung(air)-equivalent virtual-slab was then calculated. Clinical validation retrospectively included 161 SBRT plans, from five patients per-site: Pelvic-Nodes, Prostate, Liver, Pancreas, and Lungs. S-minus-M percentage differences (Δ%) were computed for target- and OARs-related dose-volume metrics. In-phantom dose verification per-patient was performed.
RESULTS: γ(2 %,1mm)-passing-rates (PR%) of in-water-computed PDD and transverse-dose-profiles vs. commissioning-dosimetry were (99.1 ± 2.0)% for M, and (99.3 ± 1.5)% for S. Calculated output-factors (OF) were typically within 1 % from measurements, except for OF(1x1cm2) which was misestimated by -4.4 % and + 2.2 %, by M and S respectively. Dose spikes (valleys) on the PDD(2x2cm2) by S across the lung-equivalent virtual-slab were slightly reduced with respect to M. In clinical plans, S computed higher V95% (p <0.05*, for pancreas and lung) and D2% (p <0.05*, for all sites) for the target, while D%>2% resulted for duodenal D(1cm3), in Pancreas-SBRT, and for mean-lung-dose, in Lung-SBRT. All mostly due to the underestimated OF(1x1cm2) by M. In-phantom dose verifications showed an average 1% increase in PR% by S vs. M.
CONCLUSIONS: Beam-model quality in S resulted equivalent to M, thus making S useful both for an independent validation of the same beam-model in M, and for a daily validation of the M-based online approval decisions, without significantly delaying the clinical workflow (2-3 min).