journals.iop.org home page electronic journals * User guide   * Site map   | Quick Search:Help  
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Athens/Institutional login
IOP login: Password:   
Create account | Alerts | Contact us
Journals Home | Journals List | EJs Extra | This Journal | Search | Authors | Referees | Librarians | User Options | Help |

A comparison of Monte Carlo dose calculation denoising techniques

I El Naqa et al 2005 Phys. Med. Biol. 50 909-922   doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/014  Help

   PDF (459 KB) | References | Articles citing this article

I El Naqa1, I Kawrakow2, M Fippel3, J V Siebers4, P E Lindsay1, M V Wickerhauser1, M Vicic1, K Zakarian1, N Kauffmann5 and J O Deasy1,6
1 Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA
2 National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
3 Univ Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
4 Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
5 Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France
6 Address for correspondence: WUSM Radiation Oncology, Division of Physics, 4921 Parkview Place, Box 8224, St Louis, MO 63110, USA
E-mail: deasy@wustl.edu

Abstract. Recent studies have demonstrated that Monte Carlo (MC) denoising techniques can reduce MC radiotherapy dose computation time significantly by preferentially eliminating statistical fluctuations ('noise') through smoothing. In this study, we compare new and previously published approaches to MC denoising, including 3D wavelet threshold denoising with sub-band adaptive thresholding, content adaptive mean–median-hybrid (CAMH) filtering, locally adaptive Savitzky–Golay curve-fitting (LASG), anisotropic diffusion (AD) and an iterative reduction of noise (IRON) method formulated as an optimization problem. Several challenging phantom and computed-tomography-based MC dose distributions with varying levels of noise formed the test set. Denoising effectiveness was measured in three ways: by improvements in the mean-square-error (MSE) with respect to a reference (low noise) dose distribution; by the maximum difference from the reference distribution and by the 'Van Dyk' pass/fail criteria of either adequate agreement with the reference image in low-gradient regions (within 2% in our case) or, in high-gradient regions, a distance-to-agreement-within-2% of less than 2 mm. Results varied significantly based on the dose test case: greater reductions in MSE were observed for the relatively smoother phantom-based dose distribution (up to a factor of 16 for the LASG algorithm); smaller reductions were seen for an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) head and neck case (typically, factors of 2–4). Although several algorithms reduced statistical noise for all test geometries, the LASG method had the best MSE reduction for three of the four test geometries, and performed the best for the Van Dyk criteria. However, the wavelet thresholding method performed better for the head and neck IMRT geometry and also decreased the maximum error more effectively than LASG. In almost all cases, the evaluated methods provided acceleration of MC results towards statistically more accurate results.

Print publication: Issue 5 (7 March 2005)
Received 14 May 2004, in final form 14 September 2004
Published 17 February 2005

Bookmark and Share Post to CiteUlike | Post to Connotea | Post to Bibsonomy

 


Find related articles






Article options

Authors & Referees

 
Content finder
  Full Search
  Help


  
Setup information is available for Adobe Acrobat.
EndNote, ProCite ® and Reference Manager ® are registered trademarks of ISI Researchsoft.
Copyright © Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited 2009.
Use of this service is subject to compliance with the Terms and Conditions of use. In particular, reselling and systematic downloading of files is prohibited.
Help: Cookies | Data Protection. Privacy policy Disclaimer