<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p></p>
<p>Hi Jakub,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It's not a bug, it's a feature. :)</p>
<p></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The first version of the TPS pencil beam source actor was written about a decade ago, and a stub for the couch angle was included to be implemented later. This never happened, and two years ago it was decided that actually it would be better to *not* include
this functionality in the TPS pencil beam source actor, but rather let the users rotate "the patient" (or rather the CT image) themselves. For file reading compatibility reasons the couch angle is still read in, but indeed, it's not used.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Obviously this should be documented better, to avoid this kind of confusion. Sorry about that!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>HTH,<br>
</p>
<p>David Boersma<br>
</p>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>Von:</b> Gate-users <gate-users-bounces@lists.opengatecollaboration.org> im Auftrag von jbaran <jbaran@ifj.edu.pl><br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 4. Oktober 2019 14:46:04<br>
<b>An:</b> Gate Users<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [Gate-users] TPSPlan simulations</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Dear GATE Community,<br>
<br>
I am trying to validate the GATE software with TPS (GATE-RTion) for <br>
proton radiotherapy planning at our centre in Cracow. I prepared the <br>
beam model and CT calibration as requested at GATE wiki. For the dicom <br>
plan conversion I used clitkDicomRTPlan2GATE from VV software.<br>
I found one problem in the simulations. I believe the <br>
PatientAngleSupport (couch angle) is not taken into account at all. I <br>
simplified the whole plan to just one spot and run the simulation with <br>
GATE and compared with TPS. Let say in original plan PatientSupportAngle <br>
is 340. However, the dose profile of the spot suggest that that Patient <br>
Support Angle is 0. For testing purpose I changed just the <br>
PatientSupportAngle into 300 and 200. But the dose profiles looks <br>
exactly the same as in case of 340 (they are situated exactly in the <br>
same position for all three cases and doesn't correspond to the proper <br>
dose profile from TPS).<br>
<br>
Please find attached a few images shown the dose map imposed on the CT.<br>
<br>
The plan description file is as follows:<br>
#TREATMENT-PLAN-DESCRIPTION<br>
#PlanName<br>
Toto<br>
#NumberOfFractions<br>
1<br>
##FractionID<br>
1<br>
##NumberOfFields<br>
1<br>
###FieldsID<br>
1<br>
#TotalMetersetWeightOfAllFields<br>
1<br>
<br>
#FIELD-DESCRIPTION<br>
###FieldID<br>
1<br>
###FinalCumulativeMeterSetWeight<br>
1<br>
###GantryAngle<br>
110<br>
###PatientSupportAngle<br>
340<br>
###IsocenterPosition<br>
10 -239.4 -785<br>
###NumberOfControlPoints<br>
1<br>
<br>
#SPOTS-DESCRIPTION<br>
####ControlPointIndex<br>
0<br>
####SpotTunnedID<br>
3.0<br>
####CumulativeMetersetWeight<br>
0<br>
####Energy (MeV)<br>
175.228<br>
####NbOfScannedSpots<br>
1<br>
####X Y Weight<br>
15 -35 1<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>