Independent Monte Carlo dose calculation identifies single isocenter multi‐target radiosurgery targets most likely to fail pre‐treatment measurement

Brett Erickson,Yunfeng Cui,Markus Alber,Chunhao Wang,Fang Fang Yin,John Kirkpatrick,Justus Adamson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14290

2024-01-31

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

Abstract:Purpose For individual targets of single isocenter multi‐target (SIMT) Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we assess dose difference between the treatment planning system (TPS) and independent Monte Carlo (MC), and demonstrate persistence into the pre‐treatment Quality Assurance (QA) measurement. Methods Treatment plans from 31 SIMT SRS patients were recalculated in a series of scenarios designed to investigate sources of discrepancy between TPS and independent MC. Targets with > 5% discrepancy in DMean[Gy] after progressing through all scenarios were measured with SRS MapCHECK. A matched pair analysis was performed comparing SRS MapCHECK results for these targets with matched targets having similar characteristics (volume & distance from isocenter) but no such MC dose discrepancy. Results Of 217 targets analyzed, individual target mean dose (DMean[Gy]) fell outside a 5% threshold for 28 and 24 targets before and after removing tissue heterogeneity effects, respectively, while only 5 exceeded the threshold after removing effect of patient geometry (via calculation on StereoPHAN geometry). Significant factors affecting agreement between the TPS and MC included target distance from isocenter (0.83% decrease in DMean[Gy] per 2 cm), volume (0.15% increase per cc), and degree of plan modulation (0.37% increase per 0.01 increase in modulation complexity score). SRS MapCHECK measurement had better agreement with MC than with TPS (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold gamma pass rate (GPR) = 99.4 ± 1.9% vs. 93.1 ± 13.9%, respectively). In the matched pair analysis, targets exceeding 5% for MC versus TPS also had larger discrepancies between TPS and measurement with no GPR (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold) exceeding 90% (71.5% ± 16.1%); whereas GPR was high for matched targets with no such MC versus TPS difference (96.5% ± 3.3%, p = 0.01). Conclusions Independent MC complements pre‐treatment QA measurement for SIMT SRS by identifying problematic individual targets prior to pre‐treatment measurement, thus enabling plan modifications earlier in the planning process and guiding selection of targets for pre‐treatment QA measurement.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging