Literature DB >> 17228117

Influence of dose engine accuracy on the optimum dose distribution in intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment plans.

Martin Soukup1, Markus Alber.   

Abstract

Analytical dose computation algorithms like pencil beam algorithms (PB) are presently used for clinical treatment planning in intensity-modulated proton therapy. PB offer fast computation times, but are based on substantial approximations. Monte Carlo algorithms (MC) offer better accuracy, but are slower. We present a comparison of optimized treatment plans for six patients computed either with PB or MC. Both PB and MC are used during optimization, plus MC is used to recompute PB results. PB is used with different accuracy settings that define the coarseness of approximation. We evaluate the errors of PB optimized treatment plans via comparison with MC optimized plans (convergence errors) and MC recomputed plans (systematic errors) occurring for different accuracy settings of the PB. The level of lateral heterogeneities, being one of the main sources of inaccuracies of the PB, is quantified by a formula. In geometries with high levels of lateral heterogeneities, the shortcomings of PB are most obvious. For these geometries, simple PB lead to clinically significant differences and more accurate PB settings have to be used to diminish the error. The most accurate PB settings lead however to longer computing times by approximately a factor of 2 to 4 compared to PB with simple settings. Although the errors can be diminished, they cannot be fully eliminated even with sophisticated PB. Further gain in accuracy can therefore only be reached with MC in optimization. The use of MC in optimization is technically feasible, the computing times are however about 25 to 50 times longer compared to PB with most accurate settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17228117     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/3/014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  8 in total

1.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Thomas Bortfeld; Benjamin C Martin; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

Authors:  Hakan Nystrom; Maria Fuglsang Jensen; Petra Witt Nystrom
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning.

Authors:  Clemens Grassberger; Alexei Trofimov; Anthony Lomax; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Jan Schuemann; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Clemens Grassberger; Maryam Moteabbed; Chul Hee Min; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 5.  Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Is an analytical dose engine sufficient for intensity modulated proton therapy in lung cancer?

Authors:  Suliana Teoh; Francesca Fiorini; Ben George; Katherine A Vallis; Frank Van den Heuvel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 3.629

Review 7.  Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Darren M C Poon; Stephen Wu; Leon Ho; Kin Yin Cheung; Ben Yu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  Application of dose kernel calculation using a simplified Monte Carlo method to treatment plan for scanned proton beams.

Authors:  Shohei Mizutani; Yoshihisa Takada; Ryosuke Kohno; Kenji Hotta; Ryohei Tansho; Tetsuo Akimoto
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.102

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.