Radiation therapy has become a very import method for treating cancer patients. Thus, it is extremely important to accurately determine the location of energy deposition during these treatments, maximizing dose to the tumor region and minimizing it to healthy tissue. A Coarse-Mesh Transport Method (COMET) has been developed at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the Computational Reactor and Medical Physics Group for use very successfully with neutron transport to analyze whole-core criticality. COMET works by decomposing a large, heterogeneous system into a set of smaller fixed source problems. For each unique local problem that exists, a solution is obtained that we call a response function. These response functions are pre-computed and stored in a library for future use. The overall solution to the global problem can then be found by a linear superposition of these local problems. This method has now been extended to the transport of photons and electrons for use in medical physics problems to determine energy deposition from radiation therapy treatments.

The main goal of this work was to develop benchmarks for testing in order to evaluate the COMET code to determine its strengths and weaknesses for these medical physics applications. For response function calculations, legendre polynomial expansions are necessary for space, angle, polar angle, and azimuthal angle. An initial sensitivity study was done to determine the best orders for future testing. After the expansion orders were found, three simple benchmarks were tested: a water phantom, a simplified lung phantom, and a non-clinical slab phantom. Each of these benchmarks was decomposed into 1cm x 1cm and 0.5cm x 0.5cm coarse meshes. Three more clinically relevant problems were developed from patient CT scans. These benchmarks modeled a lung patient, a prostate patient, and a beam re-entry situation. As before, the problems were divided into 1cm x 1cm, 0.5cm x 0.5cm, and 0.25cm x 0.25cm coarse mesh cases. Multiple beam energies were also tested for each case. The COMET solutions for each case were compared to a reference solution obtained by pure Monte Carlo results from EGSnrc. When comparing the COMET results to the reference cases, a pattern of differences appeared in each phantom case. It was found that better results were obtained for lower energy incident photon beams as well as for larger mesh sizes. Possible changes may need to be made with the expansion orders used for energy and angle to better model high energy secondary electrons. Heterogeneity also did not pose a problem for the COMET methodology. Heterogeneous results were found in a comparable amount of time to the homogeneous water phantom. The COMET results were typically found in minutes to hours of computational time, whereas the reference cases typically required hundreds or thousands of hours.

A second sensitivity study was also performed on a more stringent problem and with smaller coarse meshes. Previously, the same expansion order was used for each incident photon beam energy so better comparisons could be made. From this second study, it was found that it is optimal to have different expansion orders based on the incident beam energy.

Recommendations for future work with this method include more testing on higher expansion orders or possible code modification to better handle secondary electrons. The method also needs to handle more clinically relevant beam descriptions with an energy and angular distribution associated with it.