Search

Recent technological innovations have created new opportunities for the increased adoption of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) applications in medicine. While medical applications of VR have historically seen greater adoption from patient-as-user applications, the new era of VR/AR technology has created the conditions for wider adoption of clinician-as-user applications. Historically, adoption to clinical use has been limited in part by the ability of the technology to achieve a sufficient quality of experience. This article reviews the definitions of virtual and augmented reality and briefly covers the history of their development. Currently available options for consumer-level virtual and augmented reality systems are presented, along with a discussion of technical considerations for their adoption in the clinical environment. Finally, a brief review of the literature of medical VR/AR applications is presented prior to introducing a comprehensive conceptual framework for the viewing and manipulation of medical images in virtual and augmented reality. Using this framework, we outline considerations for placing these methods directly into a radiology-based workflow and show how it can be applied to a variety of clinical scenarios.

Purpose: To explain the deviation observed between measured and Monaco calculated dose profiles for a small field (i.e., alternating open‐closed MLC pattern). A Monte Carlo (MC) model of an Elekta Infinity linac with Agility MLC was created and validated against measurements. In addition, an analytic model which predicts the fluence at the isocenter plane was used to study the impact of multiple beam parameters on the accuracy of dose calculations for small fields. Methods: A detailed MC model of a 6 MV Elekta Infinity linac with Agility MLC was created in EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and validated against measurements. An analytic model using primary and secondary virtual photon sources was created and benchmarked against the MC simulations and the impact of multiple beam parameters on the accuracy of the model for a small field was investigated. Both models were used to explain discrepancies observed between measured/EGSnrc simulated and Monaco calculated dose profiles for alternating open‐closed MLC leaves. Results: MC‐simulated dose profiles (PDDs, cross‐ and in‐line profiles, etc.) were found to be in very good agreements with measurements. The best fit for the leaf bank rotation was found to be 9 mrad to model the defocusing of Agility MLC. Moreover, a very good agreement was observed between results from the analytic model and MC simulations for a small field. Modifying the radial size of the incident electron beam in the BEAMnrc model improved the agreement between Monaco and EGSnrc calculated dose profiles by approximately 16% and 30% in the position of maxima and minima, respectively. Conclusion: Accurate modeling of the full‐width‐half‐maximum (FWHM) of the primary photon source as well as the MLC leaf design (leaf bank rotation, etc.) is essential for accurate calculations of dose delivered by small radiation fields when using virtual source or MC models of the beam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]