Evaluation of Electron Monte Carlo

for Rectangular Shaped Cutouts

Saerom Chang, RT(T), 1
MS ; Kelsey Johnson, CMD, Tony Pixton, DABR, 2
MS ;
; Matthew Rodriguez, DABR, MS 2 MS 2
1Grand Valley State University, 2NorthShore University HealthSystem

Introduction Results
The purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of cutout 1. Measurement vs. eMC & Measurement vs. CC
factors determined by Varian Electron Monte Carlo The cutout factors measured were compared with
(eMC) and Radformations ClearCalc (CC) when the ones calculated by eMC and CC respectively
compared to measured values for a wider variety of (Figure 2). The differences were within 5% above 4x4
cutout shapes, electron energies and treatment field sizes regardless of energies or SSDs, and most of
geometries. them were within 3%.
• The greater discrepancies were observed at the
The previous research found that eMC calculated Figure 1. Comparison of the Farmer chamber for small fields and large fields smaller side of field size less than 4 cm.
cutout factors had overall good agreement with and placement of ion chamber for rectangular shapes. (a) and (b) show the • 5 out of 825 cutout factors had more than 5%
measured values. However, this work was limited to a Farmer chamber cannot fit for small fields; (c) The ion chamber was placed discrepancies.
select number of cutouts, electron energies and parallel with the longitudinal side. • Measured vs. eMC 3x20 at 9MeV, 100 SSD
treatment geometries.
% Difference of Measured vs. eMC for 3cm x * cm % Difference of Measured vs. CC for 3cm x * cm • Measured vs. CC 3x3 at 6MeV, 100SSD
6MeV 6MeV
6%
5%
3x3
6%
5%
3x3 • Measured vs. eMC 3x3 at 9MeV, 105 SSD
4% 3x5 4% 3x5

This study performed a wider variety of rectangular 20MeV

3%
2% 9MeV
3x6
3x8 20MeV
3%
2% 9MeV
3x6
3x8
• Measured vs. CC 3x3 at 6MeV, 105 SSD
1% 1%

cutout shapes, electron energies and treatment 0%

3x10
3x12
0%
3x10
3x12 • Measured vs. eMC 3x3 at 9MeV, 110 SSD
3x15 3x15

geometries, in order to further examine the 3x18

3x20
3x18
3x20

agreement between calculated and measured cutout 16MeV 12MeV 3x22 16MeV 12MeV 3x22
2. Cutout factors by SSD (100, 105, 110)
factors. % Difference of Measured vs. eMC for 4cm x * cm % Difference of Measured vs. CC for 4cm x * cm The % differences between the measured cutout
6MeV 6MeV
6% 6%
5%
4%
4x4
4x6
5%
4%
4x4
4x6
factors and the cutout factors calculated by eMC and
3% 3%
20MeV 2%
1%
9MeV
4x8
4x10
20MeV 2%
1%
9MeV
4x8
4x10
CC for a specific SSD were within 3.5% regardless of
the SSD or electron energy.
0% 4x12 0% 4x12
4x15 4x15

Methods and Materials

4x18 4x18

16MeV 12MeV
4x20
4x22
16MeV 12MeV
4x20
4x22 When the cutout factors measured or calculated at a
specific SSD were compared to other SSDs, larger
% Difference of Measured vs. eMC for 6cm x * cm % Difference of Measured vs. CC for 6 cm x * cm
6MeV 6MeV discrepancies were observed for smaller field sizes
The cutout factors measured were compared to the 6%
5%
4% 6x6
6%
5%
4% 6x6 and for lower electron energies.
values determined by eMC and CC. 3% 6x8 3% 6x8

• As field size and electron energy were increased,

20MeV 2% 9MeV 6x10 20MeV 2% 9MeV 6x10
1% 1%
6x12 6x12
0% 0%
6x15 6x15
6x18
6x20
6x18
6x20
the discrepancy in cutout factors measured or
A total of 825 cutout factors from 55 different 16MeV 12MeV
6x22
16MeV 12MeV
6x22
calculated at one SSD versus the other were
electron blocks were evaluated. eMC (Eclipse V15.6)
reduced.
and CC calculations (V1.7.6) as well as physical % Difference of Measured vs. eMC for 8 cm x * cm % Difference of Measured vs. CC for 8 cm x * cm
6MeV 6MeV

measurements at Varian Trilogy was performed with 6%

5%
6%
5%
4% 4%

various rectangular shaped cutouts according to the 20MeV

3%
2% 9MeV
8x8
20MeV
3%
2% 9MeV
8x8

Conclusions
8x12 8x12

combination of
1% 1%
8x15 8x15
0% 0%
8x18 8x18
8x20 8x20

• energies (6MeV, 9MeV, 12MeV, 16MeV, 20MeV) 8x22 8x22

16MeV 12MeV 16MeV 12MeV

• SSDs (100cm. 105cm, 110cm) When the smallest dimension was greater than 4cm,
• and cone sizes (A6, A10, A15, A20, A25) % Difference of Measured vs. eMC 10 cm x * cm
6MeV
% Difference of Measured vs. CC for 10 cm x * cm
6MeV
the measurements have a good agreement with eMC
6% 6%
5%
4%
5%
4%
and CC.
3% 3%

Two ion chambers were used for measurements. The 20MeV 2%

1%
9MeV
10x10
10x15
20MeV 2%
1%
9MeV
10x10
10x15
This study supports the clinical practice of using eMC
to calculate the cutout factors for the field size which
0% 10x18 0% 10x18

Farmer chamber and micro chamber had collecting 10x20

10x22
10x20
10x22

volumes of 0.6cm3 and 0.015 cm3, respectively. The has a smaller dimension greater than 4cm. The cutout
16MeV 12MeV 16MeV 12MeV

micro chamber was employed for small fields to factor should be calculated at the treatment SSD.
overcome the limitation of the detector size of the % Difference of Measured vs. eMC for 15cm x * cm
6%
6MeV
% Difference of Measured vs. CC for 15 cm x * cm
6%
6MeV
The application of eMC will increase efficiency as
Farmer chamber (Figure 1.(a) and (b)). To avoid partial 5%
4%
5%
4%
saving the planning time and manpower.
3% 3%

volume effects, the chamber was placed parallel to 20MeV 2%

1%
9MeV
15x15
20MeV 2%
1%
9MeV
15x15

the longitudinal side of the field (Figure 1.(c)). 0% 15x20

15x22
0% 15x20
15x22

16MeV 12MeV 16MeV 12MeV

The ion chambers were placed in solid water and
additional solid water was added so that the chamber
was at a depth of 1.2 cm for 6 MeV and 2.5 cm for 9-
20 MeV.
(a)
Figure 2. % differences between Measurement and eMC cutout factors
(a) and % differences between Measurement and CC (b) by fields sizes
and energies at 100cm SSD. The side of the field size was smaller, the
larger difference was observed.
Limitation
(b)
The measurement was performed at the same depth
for 9MeV and above, in order to overcome the
research time limitation. If the depths were taken at
each Dmax, the discrepancies by energies could be
more reduced.