Literature DB >> 28749373

Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations.

Jatinder Saini1, Dominic Maes, Alexander Egan, Stephen R Bowen, Sara St James, Martin Janson, Tony Wong, Charles Bloch.   

Abstract

RaySearch Americas Inc. (NY) has introduced a commercial Monte Carlo dose algorithm (RS-MC) for routine clinical use in proton spot scanning. In this report, we provide a validation of this algorithm against phantom measurements and simulations in the GATE software package. We also compared the performance of the RayStation analytical algorithm (RS-PBA) against the RS-MC algorithm. A beam model (G-MC) for a spot scanning gantry at our proton center was implemented in the GATE software package. The model was validated against measurements in a water phantom and was used for benchmarking the RS-MC. Validation of the RS-MC was performed in a water phantom by measuring depth doses and profiles for three spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) beams with normal incidence, an SOBP with oblique incidence, and an SOBP with a range shifter and large air gap. The RS-MC was also validated against measurements and simulations in heterogeneous phantoms created by placing lung or bone slabs in a water phantom. Lateral dose profiles near the distal end of the beam were measured with a microDiamond detector and compared to the G-MC simulations, RS-MC and RS-PBA. Finally, the RS-MC and RS-PBA were validated against measured dose distributions in an Alderson-Rando (AR) phantom. Measurements were made using Gafchromic film in the AR phantom and compared to doses using the RS-PBA and RS-MC algorithms. For SOBP depth doses in a water phantom, all three algorithms matched the measurements to within  ±3% at all points and a range within 1 mm. The RS-PBA algorithm showed up to a 10% difference in dose at the entrance for the beam with a range shifter and  >30 cm air gap, while the RS-MC and G-MC were always within 3% of the measurement. For an oblique beam incident at 45°, the RS-PBA algorithm showed up to 6% local dose differences and broadening of distal fall-off by 5 mm. Both the RS-MC and G-MC accurately predicted the depth dose to within  ±3% and distal fall-off to within 2 mm. In an anthropomorphic phantom, the gamma index (dose tolerance  =  3%, distance-to-agreement  =  3 mm) was greater than 90% for six out of seven planes using the RS-MC, and three out seven for the RS-PBA. The RS-MC algorithm demonstrated improved dosimetric accuracy over the RS-PBA in the presence of homogenous, heterogeneous and anthropomorphic phantoms. The computation performance of the RS-MC was similar to the RS-PBA algorithm. For complex disease sites like breast, head and neck, and lung cancer, the RS-MC algorithm will provide significantly more accurate treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28749373     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa82a5

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Proton therapy delivery: what is needed in the next ten years?

Authors:  Andries N Schreuder; Jacob Shamblin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms.

Authors:  Jatinder Saini; Erik Traneus; Dominic Maes; Rajesh Regmi; Stephen R Bowen; Charles Bloch; Tony Wong
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

3.  Improving Proton Dose Calculation Accuracy by Using Deep Learning.

Authors:  Chao Wu; Dan Nguyen; Yixun Xing; Ana Barragan Montero; Jan Schuemann; Haijiao Shang; Yuehu Pu; Steve Jiang
Journal:  Mach Learn Sci Technol       Date:  2021-04-06

4.  Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons.

Authors:  Sirinya Ruangchan; Hugo Palmans; Barbara Knäusl; Dietmar Georg; Monika Clausen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 4.506

5.  Clinical Monte Carlo versus Pencil Beam Treatment Planning in Nasopharyngeal Patients Receiving IMPT.

Authors:  Balu Krishna Sasidharan; Saif Aljabab; Jatinder Saini; Tony Wong; George Laramore; Jay Liao; Upendra Parvathaneni; Stephen R Bowen
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2019-04-18

6.  Transitioning from measurement-based to combined patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Mei Chen; Pablo Yepes; Yoshifumi Hojo; Falk Poenisch; Yupeng Li; Jiayi Chen; Cheng Xu; Xiaodong He; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Narayan Sahoo; Heng Li; Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Pitfalls in the beam modelling process of Monte Carlo calculations for proton pencil beam scanning.

Authors:  Carla Winterhalter; Adam Aitkenhead; David Oxley; Jenny Richardson; Damien C Weber; Ranald I MacKay; Antony J Lomax; Sairos Safai
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Clinical Implementation of Proton Therapy Using Pencil-Beam Scanning Delivery Combined With Static Apertures.

Authors:  Christian Bäumer; Sandija Plaude; Dalia Ahmad Khalil; Dirk Geismar; Paul-Heinz Kramer; Kevin Kröninger; Christian Nitsch; Jörg Wulff; Beate Timmermann
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  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

10.  Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer.

Authors:  Dominic Maes; Jatinder Saini; Jing Zeng; Ramesh Rengan; Tony Wong; Stephen R Bowen
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.