Impact of Voxel Grid Size and Statistical Uncertainty on Surface Depth Dose Via Various Planning Techniques and Immobilization Devices Using Monte Carlo Algorithm

Le résumé fourni par la source

IntroductionThis study aims to analyze the impact of the surface dose at depth (1-5mm) in different planning techniques and immobilization devices by varying the dose-voxel size (DVS) and statistical uncertainty (SU) using Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm.MethodsThree Sets of computed tomography (CT) images were taken from an in-house developed chest phantom, which included an open phantom, a vaclok and a thermoplastic mask. The image sets were pushed to the Monaco planning station for registration and contouring. Six beams of 6 MV photon energy are used to plan an Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique, and a half arc beam is used for Volumetric Modulated arc therapy (VMAT). In each plan, recalculation is performed by changing only the grid size from 1 mm to 8 mm and the statistical uncertainty from 1% to 5% from the parameter control window, keeping the other dose constraints the same. A total of 240 plans were performed for all three image sets together for both the IMRT and VMAT techniques, and the dose at depth was compared and statistically analyzed via the Kruskal-Walli's test.ResultsThe homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and V95% target are increased in both IMRT and VMAT, whereas the SU and DVS are reduced.ConclusionHigher statistical uncertainty and grid size significantly reduced dose calculation time, independent of technique or device. surface dose at depth (1-5mm) decreased with increasing grid size and increased with lower statistical uncertainty. IMRT consistently showed higher skin doses than VMAT across all devices, with vac-lock immobilization yielding the highest surface dose in both techniques. These findings show that the surface dose is influenced by beam selection, parameter settings, and the optimization time allocated during treatment planning.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.