Radiation Physics and Chemistry 95 (2014) 161–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Radiation Physics and Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radphyschem

Determining optimization of the initial parameters in Monte Carlo

simulation for linear accelerator radiotherapy
Kwo-Ping Chang a,n, Zhi-Wei Wang b, An-Cheng Shiau c
a
Department of Radiological Technology and Institute of Radiological Sciences, Tzu Chi College of Technology, 880, Section 2, Chien-Kuo Road, Hualien 970,
Taiwan
b
Health Physics Division, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, 1000, Wenhua Road, Jiaan Village, Longtan Township, Taoyuan County 32546, Taiwan
c
Department of Radiation Therapy, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, 21, Section 2, Nanya S. Road, Banciao District, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan

H I G H L I G H T S

c Crucial parameters were investigated using a logical system procedure.

c Interpolation of depth dose curves using pre-set energies as a first step.
c Comparisons using PDD curves normalized by D(10), excluding buildup region.
c FWHM is sensitive to horn/penumbra regions, but they give inconsistent values.
c Optimizing the FWHM requires the flat regions at various depths.

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Monte Carlo (MC) method is a well known calculation algorithm which can accurately assess the dose
Received 11 October 2012 distribution for radiotherapy. The present study investigated all the possible regions of the depth-dose
Accepted 5 February 2013 or lateral profiles which may affect the fitting of the initial parameters (mean energy and the radial
Available online 18 February 2013
intensity (full width at half maximum, FWHM) of the incident electron). EGSnrc-based BEAMnrc codes
Keywords: were used to generate the phase space files (SSD ¼ 100 cm, FS ¼ 40  40 cm2) for the linac (linear
Monte Carlo simulation accelerator, Varian 21EX, 6 MV photon mode) and EGSnrc-based DOSXYZnrc code was used to calculate
Linac the dose in the region of interest. Interpolation of depth dose curves of pre-set energies was proposed
Initial parameters as a preliminary step for optimal energy fit. A good approach for determination of the optimal mean
Depth dose
energy is the difference comparison of the PDD curves excluding buildup region, and using D(10) as a
Lateral profile
normalization method. For FWHM fitting, due to electron disequilibrium and the larger statistical
uncertainty, using horn or/and penumbra regions will give inconsistent outcomes at various depths.
Difference comparisons should be performed in the flat regions of the off-axis dose profiles at various
depths to optimize the FWHM parameter.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The beam characteristics are often different due to variation in

Monte Carlo (MC) method has proven to be the most accurate
calculation algorithm for assessing the dose distribution in radio-
therapy. With the development of MC codes and the availability
of much faster computers, the Monte Carlo method is already in
use in clinical treatment planning systems. For issues with
implementation of Monte Carlo-based treatment planning, the
reader is referred to the AAPM TG-105 report (Chetty et al., 2007).
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 3 8572158x701; fax: þ886 3 8561396.
E-mail addresses: chang.kwoping@gmail.com, kpchang@tccn.edu.tw (K.-
P. Chang), oushii@iner.gov.tw (Z.-W. Wang), shiau158@ms22.hinet.net (A.-
C. Shiau).
accelerator designs and on-site beam tuning. It is necessary to
simulate each accelerator individually to calculate the phase
space data (Jiang et al., 1999).
Determination of the initial beam parameters is a challenging
issue for users and researchers who want to commission the Monte
Carlo simulation in radiotherapy. Several investigators (Jiang et al.,
1999; Li et al., 2000; Lin et al., 2001; Sheikh-Bagheri and Rogers,
2002; Tzedakis et al., 2004; Aljarrah et al., 2006; Pena et al., 2007;
Bush et al., 2009; Almberg et al., 2012) have reported on the
procedures for optimizing these parameters using various methods.
Unfortunately, there exist significant differences amongst these
papers, as such the following research seeks to integrate these
works into a logical procedural system.

0969-806X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2013.02.017
162 K.P. Chang et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 95 (2014) 161–165

The present study investigated all the possible regions of the
depth-dose or lateral profiles which may affect the fitting of the
initial parameters. A new procedure for tuning the mean energy
of incident electron was proposed. Some important issues in
comparisons (e.g. normalization method) became apparent and
were further investigated. The aim of this work is to suggest a
procedure which can logically and accurately isolate the initial
parameters.
2. Materials and methods
2.3.2. Interpolation of depth dose (DD) curves using Matlab code
Using the original simulated data of the 10 kinds of energy to
interpolate two-dimensionally the DDs of various energies from
5.0 to 7.0 MeV at every 0.01 MeV, a total of 191 DD curves were
identified (see the Appendix).
2.3.3. Percentage depth dose (PDD) simulations compared to
measured values
The interpolated as well as the pre-set energies’ 201 PDD
curves were compared with the measurements.

2.3.3.1. Dmax position. Determining the maximum dose position

2.1. Measurement data
and comparing to the measured data.
Measurement data of depth dose or off-axis lateral dose were
obtained by a Wellhofer IC-10 ionization chamber within a water 2.3.3.2. PDD at Z ¼10 cm; %D(10). Compare the percentage depth
tank with volume of 60  60  48 cm3. All the measurements used doses at z ¼10 cm of simulations with that of the measurement.
a set standard value for comparison with Monte Carlo simulation
values. 2.3.3.3. PDD curve comparison. All the PDD curve data was
compared with those of the 10 pre-set energies generated by
2.2. Monte Carlo simulation parameters the Monte Carlo simulation. Subsequently the 191 PDD curves
interpolated by the Matlab code were compared using the cost
EGSnrc-based BEAMnrc codes were used to generate the phase function to evaluate the best fit, defined as follows:
space files (SSD¼ 100 cm, FS¼40  40 cm2) for the linac. EGSnrc- X
f ð%DMC measurement 2
i %Di Þ g=n ð1Þ
based DOSXYZnrc code was used to calculate the dose in the i
region of interest. For PDD/off-axis lateral simulation, the voxel
sizes were 2  2  0.1 cm3 and 2  0.4  0.4 cm3 respectively. The
EGS4 options and settings were AE¼ECUT¼0.521 MeV and
AP¼PCUT¼ 0.01 MeV for both phase space file and lateral dose
simulations. The accelerator model, a Varian Clinac 21EX (Varian
Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), was defined by specifications
provided by the 1996 Varian Oncology Systems; Monte Carlo
Project package. The 6 MV photon mode of Varian 21EX head was
simulated. The incident electron beam was assumed to have a
Gaussian radial intensity distribution (source number 19 in
BEANnrc).

2.3. Determination of incident mean energy

2.3.1. Preliminary depth dose Monte Carlo simulations of various

energies
Firstly, depth dose simulations of 10 different pre-set energies
(5.0–7.0 MeV,) for the nominal energy 6 MeV, were carried out.
Due to the consistent relationship found between depth dose and
energy, as shown in Fig. 1, the following interpolations were
examined.

Fig. 1. Depth dose (energy/voxel) at pre-set energies (5.0–7.0 MeV) of incident Fig. 2. PDD difference comparisons between MC and measurement for various
electron. The top line is the curve of 7.0 MeV and the bottom line is the curve of energies: (a) normalized using Dmax and (b) normalized using D(10). The cost
5.0 MeV. function is defined by Eq. (1).
 K.P. Chang et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 95 (2014) 161–165
where %DMCi and %Dmeasurement
i represent the percentage dose of
Monte Carlo simulation and percentage dose of measurement
respectively; n is the total number of points measured/simulated.
Two normalization methods were used: (1) Dmax and (2)
D(10 cm), the depth dose at Z ¼10 cm. Additionally, the PDD
curves without the buildup regions were compared.
2.4. Determination of radial intensity of the incident electron
(FWHM)
Using the best energy found in 2.3, the x-axis dose profiles at
z¼ 0, 1.5, 10, 20, 30 cm for various incident electron
FWHM¼0.00–0.21 cm(every 0.03 cm) were simulated and calcu-
lated by normalizing at z ¼0. All dose profiles were compared
with measurements using cost function, individually: (1) flat
region, (2) horn and (3) penumbra and the complete curve.
3. Results
3.1. Mean energy fit
The energy of incidence of the electron holds a consistent
relationship with respect to the DD curves (Fig. 1). By interpolat-
ing the whole DD curve, more optimal energy parameters could
be selected. For Dmax position, D(10), as well as the whole PDD
curve (including buildup region) difference comparisons, the
results were chaotic and unreasonable (not shown in this paper);
Fig. 3. Lateral dose difference comparisons between MC and measurement for various FWHM in (a) the flat region (b) the horn region (c) the penumbra region and (d) all
regions of the lateral profile.
163
as a result these approaches were excluded. PDD curve compar-
isons excluding the buildup region, using Dmax or D(10 cm)
normalization are shown in Fig. 2. The differences were deemed
unreasonable using Dmax normalization (Fig. 2a). Conversely,
using z ¼10 cm normalization, the results were more reasonable
(Fig. 2b) and it was concluded to be a better approach. From
Fig. 2a, we found three minimum values (E¼5.84, 6.15 and
6.33 MeV) and used these energies for further PDD curve Monte
Carlo simulations. The data was compared with the measurement,
and the optimal energy was found to be E¼6.15 MeV.
3.2. FWHM fitting
The results of difference comparisons in the flat region, horn
and penumbra as well as the whole dose profiles are shown in
Fig. 3a,b,c and d respectively. The results of difference compar-
isons in the flat regions are in agreement at various depths; the
minimum value was found to be FWHM¼0.03 cm. However, the
results in the horn and penumbra were not consistent at various
depths. For example in the horn region, the results for Z ¼10 cm,
FWHM¼ 0.12 cm is the minimum value of the cost function;
however, for Z¼30 cm, FWHM¼0.12 cm is the highest value of
the cost function. Similar phenomena were also shown in the
penumbra regions. Based on these inconsistencies for optimal
FWHM value, difference comparisons should be taken from the
flat regions of the off-axis dose profile. The horn or penumbra
regions give unreliable values.
164 K.P. Chang et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 95 (2014) 161–165

4. Discussion

The PDD curves are sensitive only to the mean energy of the
incident electron, but dose profile curves are dependent on both
the mean energy and FWHM (Sheikh-Bagheri and Rogers, 2002;
Taedakis et al., 2004). Therefore, logically, one can use PDD to find
the optimal energy and then use dose profiles to find the optimal
FWHM.
Lin et al., (2001) study used %D(10) to find the optimal mean
energy of incident electrons. But in this study, we found that
%D(10) (normalized by Dmax in the curve) is too randomized (not
shown in this text) and therefore unsuitable for difference
comparisons. This might be due to the normalization method.
When calculating the %D(10), Dmax of the Monte Carlo simulation
is a range of points rather than an exact point, even for the
measurement (for this study, Dmax position was located at Z ¼1.2–
1.4 cm). In the vicinity of the Dmax, the depth dose shows electron
disequilibrium, that means Dmax position is unstable and thus
unsuitable as a normalization point (Ding, 2002). In this study,
D(10) used as a normalization point will solve this problem,
because D(10) is relatively stable for both the measurement and
the Monte Carlo simulation. In general, any point at the depth
past the maximum may be suitable as a normalization point;
Z ¼10 cm was chosen as this parameter corresponds to beam
quality in TG-51.
Conventionally, the optimal mean energy is fine-tuned by trial
and error method; this study proposes a procedure to accelerate
this process, using the two-dimensional interpolation of DD
curves using pre-set energies (5.0–7.0 MeV) to 191 DD curves of
various energies. Such a procedure is potentially more effective
and accurate at the optimal energy. Pre-set energies may be set at
(5.5–6.5 MeV) as it was found that the most reasonable minimum
cost function values were located in this range.
Aljarrah et al. (2006) concluded that the difference of the
penumbra edge points may lead to inaccurate determination of
the initial beam parameters. The present study also shows that
the penumbra will give inconsistent results at various depths.
Fig.4. Dose comparison between measurement and MC simulation using the
This may be due to the statistically higher uncertainty in the optimal parameters: (a) PDD comparison and (b) lateral profile comparison; for
penumbra region. The number of particles that can be quantified clarity, only three depths Z¼ 5 cm, 10 cm, 30 cm are shown.
in the penumbra region is much lower than that of other regions,
as a result the doses in the penumbra will have a larger relative
error (relative errors are proportional to 1/N1/2). The results in the comparisons should be performed in the flat regions of the off-
horn region are also inconsistent at various depths, which may be axis dose profiles at various depths to optimize the FWHM
due to the electron disequilibrium. The current study strongly parameter.
suggests that the FWHM of the incident electron is sensitive to the
horn/penumbra regions of the off-axis profile, due to electron
disequilibrium and the larger statistical uncertainty. These Acknowledgments
regions are not acceptable for use in defining the optimal FWHM.
Using the optimal parameters (E¼6.15 MeV, FWHM¼0.03 cm), The authors wish to express their gratitude to Natasha Schlie-
the re-calculated Monte Carlo simulation for PDD and lateral dose phorst-Tomicis, B.Sc., for insights and discussion.
profiles are in good agreement with the measurements (Fig. 4a,b).

Appendix. Programs for interpretations of DD curves using

5. Conclusion Matlab codes

Simulation of the crucial parameters, mean energy and FWHM

of incidence electrons using a logical system procedure was
performed. Interpolation of DD curves utilizing pre-set energies
was implemented as the crucial step for fitting the optimal
energy. Difference comparison using the PDD curves, while
excluding buildup region, and using D(10) as a normalization
method results in more reliable data. FWHM of the incident
electron is sensitive to the horn/penumbra regions of the
off-axis profile; however, due to electron disequilibrium and the
larger statistical uncertainty, using horn or/and penumbra regions
will result in inconsistent values at various depths. Difference
– ENG_LIST ¼[5.0, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.7, 7.0];
– interp_ENG_LIST¼[5.0:0.01:7.0];
– grid_ENG_LIST¼ones (length(DD_list), length(ENG_LIST));
– g_interp_ENG_LIST¼ones (length(DD_list), length (interp_
ENG_LIST));
– Y ¼ones (length(DD_list), length(ENG_LIST));
– YI ¼ones (length(DD_list), length(interp_ENG_LISTENG_LIST));
– for
– i ¼1:length(DD_list);
– grid_ENG_LIST(i,:)¼interp_ENG_LIST;
 K.P. Chang et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 95 (2014) 161–165
– Y(i,:)¼Y(i,:)ni;
– YI(i,:) ¼YI(i,:)ni;
– End
– interp_DD¼interp2(grid_ENG_LIST, Y, DD_list, g_interp_ENG_
LIST, YI);
– grid_ENG_LIST, Y, DD_list
– g_interp_ENG_LIST, YI
References
Aljarrah, K., Sharp, G.C., Neicu, T., Jiang, S.B., 2006. Determination of the initial
beam parameters in Monte Carlo linac simulation. Med. Phys. 33, 850–858.
Almberg, S.S., Frengen, J., Kylling, A., Lindmo, T., 2012. Monte Carlo linear
accelerator simulation of megavoltage photon beams: independent determi-
nation of initial beam parameters. Med. Phys. 39, 40–46.
Bush, K., Zavgorodni, S., Beckham, W., 2009. Influence of the optimal electron
beam parameters in a Monte Carlo virtual linac model through simulated
annealing. Med. Phys 36, 2309–2319.
Chetty, I.J., Curran, B., Cygler, J.E., et al., 2007. Report of the AAPM Task Group No.
105: issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based
165
photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med. Phys. 34,
4818–4853.
Ding, G.X., 2002. Dose discrepancies between Monte Carlo calculations and
measurements in the buildup region for a high-energy photon beam. Med.
Phys. 29, 2459–2463.
Jiang, S.B., Kapur, A., Ma, C.M., 1999. Electron beam modeling and commissioning
for Monte Carlo treatment planning. Med. Phys. 27, 180–191.
Li, J.S., Pawlicki, T., Deng, T., Jiang, S.B., Mok, E., Ma, C.M., 2000. Validation of a
Monte Carlo dose calculation tool for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys.
Med. Biol. 45, 2969–2985.
Lin, S.Y., Chu, T.C., Lin, J.P., 2001. Monte Carlo simulation of a clinical linear
accelerator. Appl. Radiat. Isot 55, 759–765.
Pena, J, Gonzalez-Castano, D.M., Gomez, F., Sanchez-Doblado, F., Hartmann, G.H.,
2007. Automatic determination of primary electron beam parameters in
Monte Carlo simulation. Med. Phys. 34, 1076–1084.
Sheikh-Bagheri, D., Rogers, D.W.O., 2002. Sensitivity of megavoltage photon beam
Monte Carlo simulations to electron beam and other parameters. Med. Phys
29, 379–390.
Tzedakis, A., Damiakis, J.E., Mazonakis, M., Stratakis, J., Varveris, H., Gourtsoyian-
nis, N., 2004. Influence of initial electron beam parameters on Monte Carlo
calculated absorbed dose distributions for radiotherapy photon beams. Med.
Phys. 31, 907–913.