MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041964760 · doi:10.1118/1.2948409

Monte Carlo calculation of helical tomotherapy dose delivery

2008· article· en· W2041964760 on OpenAlexaff
Yingli Zhao, M. Mackenzie, C.J.G. Kirkby, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMultileaf collimatorMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomCollimated lightRotation (mathematics)Radiation treatment planningDosimetryPhysicsCollimatorProjection (relational algebra)Superposition principleLinear particle acceleratorImage-guided radiation therapyBeam (structure)Convolution (computer science)RadiosurgeryOpticsMedical imagingNuclear medicineComputer scienceMathematicsRadiation therapyAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helical tomotherapy delivers intensity modulated radiation therapy using a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) to modulate a fan beam of radiation. This delivery occurs while the linac gantry and treatment couch are both in constant motion, so the beam describes, from a patient/phantom perspective, a spiral or helix of dose. The planning system models this continuous delivery as a large number (51) of discrete gantry positions per rotation, and given the small jaw/fan width setting typically used (1 or 2.5 cm) and the number of overlapping rotations used to cover the target (pitch often <0.5), the treatment planning system (TPS) potentially employs a very large number of static beam directions and leaf opening configurations to model the modulated fields. All dose calculations performed by the system employ a convolution/superposition model. In this work the authors perform a full Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation of tomotherapy deliveries to phantom computed tomography (CT) data sets to verify the TPS calculations. All MC calculations are performed with the EGSnrc-based MC simulation codes, BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc. Simulations are performed by taking the sinogram (leaf opening versus time) of the treatment plan and decomposing it into 51 different projections per rotation, as does the TPS, each of which is segmented further into multiple MLC opening configurations, each with different weights that correspond to leaf opening times. Then the projection is simulated by the summing of all of the opening configurations, and the overall rotational treatment is simulated by the summing of all of the projection simulations. Commissioning of the source model was verified by comparing measured and simulated values for the percent depth dose and beam profiles shapes for various jaw settings. The accuracy of the MLC leaf width and tongue and groove spacing were verified by comparing measured and simulated values for the MLC leakage and a picket fence pattern. The validated source and MLC configuration were then used to simulate a complex modulated delivery from fixed gantry angle. Further, a preliminary rotational treatment plan to a delivery quality assurance phantom (the "cheese" phantom) CT data set was simulated. Simulations were compared with measured results taken with an A1SL ionization chamber or EDR2 film measurements in a water tank or in a solid water phantom, respectively. The source and MLC MC simulations agree with the film measurements, with an acceptable number of pixels passing the 2%/1 mm gamma criterion. 99.8% of voxels of the MC calculation in the planning target volume (PTV) of the preliminary plan passed the 2%/2 mm gamma value test. 87.0% and 66.2% of the voxels in two organs at risk (OARs) passed the 2%/2 mm tests. For a 3%/3 mm criterion, the PTV and OARs show 100%, 93.2%, and 86.6% agreement, respectively. All voxels passed the gamma value test with a criterion of 5%/3 mm. The Tomo-Therapy TPS showed comparable results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207