Comparison of monte carlo collimator transport methods for photon treatment planning in radiotherapy.

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was a Monte Carlo (MC) based investigation of the impact of different radiation transport methods in collimators of a linear accelerator on photon beam characteristics, dose distributions, and efficiency. Thereby it is investigated if it is possible to use different simplifications in the radiation transport for some clinical situations in order to save calculation time.

METHODS

Within the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan, a GUI-based framework for photon MC treatment planning, different MC methods are available for the radiation transport through the collimators [secondary jaws and multileaf collimator (MLC)]: EGSnrc (reference), VMC++, and Pin (an in-house developed MC code). Additional nonfull transport methods were implemented in order to provide different complexity levels for the MC simulation: Considering collimator attenuation only, considering Compton scatter only or just the firstCompton process, and considering the collimators as totally absorbing. Furthermore, either a simple or an exact geometry of the collimators can be selected for the absorbing or attenuation method. Phasespaces directly above and dose distributions in a water phantom are analyzed for academic and clinical treatment fields using 6 and 15 MV beams, including intensity modulated radiation therapy with dynamic MLC.

RESULTS

For all MC transport methods, differences in the radial mean energy and radial energy fluence are within 1% inside the geometric field. Below the collimators, the energy fluence is underestimated for nonfull MC transport methods ranging from 5% for Compton to 100% for Absorbing. Gamma analysis using EGSnrc calculated doses as reference shows that the percentage of voxels fulfilling a 1% /1 mm criterion is at least 98% when using VMC++, Compton, or firstCompton transport methods. When using the methods Pin, Transmission, Flat-Transmission, Flat-Absorbing or Absorbing, the mean value of points fulfilling this criterion over all tested cases is 97%, 88%, 74%, 68%, or 65%, respectively. However, compared to EGSnrc calculations, the gain in efficiency is a factor of up to 10 for VMC++ and up to 48 for the absorbing method.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this investigation suggest that it is an option to use a simple transport technique in the initial treatment planning process and use more accurate transport methods for the final dose calculation accepting longer calculation times.