Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026

Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Evaluation of a commercial electron treatment planning system based on Monte Carlo techniques (eMC)
Peter Pemler1, Jürgen Besserer, Uwe Schneider
1Klinik für Radio-Onkologie und Nuklearmedizin, Stadtspital Triemli, Zürich. pemler@triemli.unizh.ch
Abstract:
A commercial electron beam treatment planning system on the basis of a Monte Carlo algorithm (Varian Eclipse, eMC V7.2.35) was evaluated. Measured dose distributions were used for comparison with dose distributions predicted by eMC calculations. Tests were carried out for various applicators and field sizes, irregular shaped cut outs and an inhomogeneity phantom for energies between 6 Me V and 22 MeV Monitor units were calculated for all applicator/energy combinations and field sizes down to 3 cm diameter and source-to-surface distances of 100 cm and 110 cm. A mass-density-to-Hounsfield-Units calibration was performed to compare dose distributions calculated with a default and an individual calibration. The relationship between calculation parameters of the eMC and the resulting dose distribution was studied in detail. Finally, the algorithm was also applied to a clinical case (boost treatment of the breast) to reveal possible problems in the implementation. For standard geometries there was a good agreement between measurements and calculations, except for profiles for low energies (6 MeV) and high energies (18 Me V 22 MeV), in which cases the algorithm overestimated the dose off-axis in the high-dose region. For energies of 12 MeV and higher there were oscillations in the plateau region of the corresponding depth dose curves calculated with a grid size of 1 mm. With irregular cut outs, an overestimation of the dose was observed for small slits and low energies (4% for 6 MeV), as well as for asymmetric cases and extended source-to-surface distances (12% for SSD = 120 cm). While all monitor unit calculations for SSD = 100 cm were within 3% compared to measure-ments, there were large deviations for small cut outs and source-to-surface distances larger than 100 cm (7%for a 3 cm diameter cut-out and a source-to-surface distance of 10 cm).
Related Concept Videos
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Lab
Scanning Electron Microscopy
Fundamental Principles
Accelerated...

