Jan Schuemann1, Drosoula Giantsoudi2, Clemens Grassberger2, Maryam Moteabbed2, Chul Hee Min2, Harald Paganetti2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: jschuemann@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of approximations in current analytical dose calculation methods (ADCs) on tumor control probability (TCP) in proton therapy. METHODS: Dose distributions planned with ADC were compared with delivered dose distributions as determined by Monte Carlo simulations. A total of 50 patients were investigated in this analysis with 10 patients per site for 5 treatment sites (head and neck, lung, breast, prostate, liver). Differences were evaluated using dosimetric indices based on a dose-volume histogram analysis, a γ-index analysis, and estimations of TCP. RESULTS: We found that ADC overestimated the target doses on average by 1% to 2% for all patients considered. The mean dose, D95, D50, and D02 (the dose value covering 95%, 50% and 2% of the target volume, respectively) were predicted within 5% of the delivered dose. The γ-index passing rate for target volumes was above 96% for a 3%/3 mm criterion. Differences in TCP were up to 2%, 2.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 11% for liver and breast, prostate, head and neck, and lung patients, respectively. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities for bladder and anterior rectum of prostate patients were less than 3%. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that current dose calculation algorithms lead to underdosage of the target by as much as 5%, resulting in differences in TCP of up to 11%. To ensure full target coverage, advanced dose calculation methods like Monte Carlo simulations may be necessary in proton therapy. Monte Carlo simulations may also be required to avoid biases resulting from systematic discrepancies in calculated dose distributions for clinical trials comparing proton therapy with conventional radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of approximations in current analytical dose calculation methods (ADCs) on tumor control probability (TCP) in proton therapy. METHODS: Dose distributions planned with ADC were compared with delivered dose distributions as determined by Monte Carlo simulations. A total of 50 patients were investigated in this analysis with 10 patients per site for 5 treatment sites (head and neck, lung, breast, prostate, liver). Differences were evaluated using dosimetric indices based on a dose-volume histogram analysis, a γ-index analysis, and estimations of TCP. RESULTS: We found that ADC overestimated the target doses on average by 1% to 2% for all patients considered. The mean dose, D95, D50, and D02 (the dose value covering 95%, 50% and 2% of the target volume, respectively) were predicted within 5% of the delivered dose. The γ-index passing rate for target volumes was above 96% for a 3%/3 mm criterion. Differences in TCP were up to 2%, 2.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 11% for liver and breast, prostate, head and neck, and lung patients, respectively. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities for bladder and anterior rectum of prostatepatients were less than 3%. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that current dose calculation algorithms lead to underdosage of the target by as much as 5%, resulting in differences in TCP of up to 11%. To ensure full target coverage, advanced dose calculation methods like Monte Carlo simulations may be necessary in proton therapy. Monte Carlo simulations may also be required to avoid biases resulting from systematic discrepancies in calculated dose distributions for clinical trials comparing proton therapy with conventional radiation therapy.
Authors: L Hong; M Goitein; M Bucciolini; R Comiskey; B Gottschalk; S Rosenthal; C Serago; M Urie Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jatinder Saini; Erik Traneus; Dominic Maes; Rajesh Regmi; Stephen R Bowen; Charles Bloch; Tony Wong Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-04
Authors: Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry; Paola Alvarez; Tyler Keith; Carrie Lujano; Nadia Hernandez; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nan Qin; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Jan Schuemann; Zhen Tian; Steve B Jiang; Harald Paganetti; Xun Jia Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Bruce Faddegon; José Ramos-Méndez; Jan Schuemann; Aimee McNamara; Jungwook Shin; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 2.685