Paper detail

Effect of Statistical Fluctuation in Monte Carlo Based Photon Beam Dose Calculation on Gamma Index Evaluation

The gamma-index test has been commonly adopted to quantify the degree of agreement between a reference dose distribution and an evaluation dose distribution. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been widely used for the radiotherapy dose calculation for both clinical and research purposes. The goal of this work is to investigate both theoretically and experimentally the impact of the MC statistical fluctuation on the gamma-index test when the fluctuation exists in the reference, the evaluation, or both dose distributions. To the first order approximation, we theoretically demonstrated in a simplified model that the statistical fluctuation tends to overestimate gamma-index values when existing in the reference dose distribution and underestimate gamma-index values when existing in the evaluation dose distribution given the original gamma-index is relatively large for the statistical fluctuation. Our numerical experiments using clinical photon radiation therapy cases have shown that 1) when performing a gamma-index test between an MC reference dose and a non-MC evaluation dose, the average gamma-index is overestimated and the passing rate decreases with the increase of the noise level in the reference dose; 2) when performing a gamma-index test between a non-MC reference dose and an MC evaluation dose, the average gamma-index is underestimated when they are within the clinically relevant range and the passing rate increases with the increase of the noise level in the evaluation dose; 3) when performing a gamma-index test between an MC reference dose and an MC evaluation dose, the passing rate is overestimated due to the noise in the evaluation dose and underestimated due to the noise in the reference dose. We conclude that the gamma-index test should be used with caution when comparing dose distributions computed with Monte Carlo simulation.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.