Paige A Taylor1, Stephen F Kry2, David S Followill2. 1. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: PATaylor@mdanderson.org. 2. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare analytic and Monte Carlo-based algorithms for proton dose calculations in the lung, benchmarked against anthropomorphic lung phantom measurements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A heterogeneous anthropomorphic moving lung phantom has been irradiated at numerous proton therapy centers. At 5 centers the treatment plan could be calculated with both an analytic and Monte Carlo algorithm. The doses calculated in the treatment plans were compared with the doses delivered to the phantoms, which were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters and film. Point doses were compared, as were planar doses using a gamma analysis. RESULTS: The analytic algorithms overestimated the dose to the center of the target by an average of 7.2%, whereas the Monte Carlo algorithms were within 1.6% of the physical measurements on average. In some regions of the target volume, the analytic algorithm calculations differed from the measurement by up to 31% in the internal gross target volume (iGTV) (46% in the planning target volume), over-predicting the dose. All comparisons showed a region of at least 15% dose discrepancy within the iGTV between the analytic calculation and the measured dose. The Monte Carlo algorithm recalculations showed dramatically improved agreement with the measured doses, showing mean agreement within 4% for all cases and a maximum difference of 12% within the iGTV. CONCLUSIONS: Analytic algorithms often do a poor job predicting proton dose in lung tumors, over-predicting the dose to the target by up to 46%, and should not be used unless extensive validation counters the consistent results of the present study. Monte Carlo algorithms showed dramatically improved agreement with physical measurements and should be implemented to better reflect actual delivered dose distributions.
PURPOSE: To compare analytic and Monte Carlo-based algorithms for proton dose calculations in the lung, benchmarked against anthropomorphic lung phantom measurements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A heterogeneous anthropomorphic moving lung phantom has been irradiated at numerous proton therapy centers. At 5 centers the treatment plan could be calculated with both an analytic and Monte Carlo algorithm. The doses calculated in the treatment plans were compared with the doses delivered to the phantoms, which were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters and film. Point doses were compared, as were planar doses using a gamma analysis. RESULTS: The analytic algorithms overestimated the dose to the center of the target by an average of 7.2%, whereas the Monte Carlo algorithms were within 1.6% of the physical measurements on average. In some regions of the target volume, the analytic algorithm calculations differed from the measurement by up to 31% in the internal gross target volume (iGTV) (46% in the planning target volume), over-predicting the dose. All comparisons showed a region of at least 15% dose discrepancy within the iGTV between the analytic calculation and the measured dose. The Monte Carlo algorithm recalculations showed dramatically improved agreement with the measured doses, showing mean agreement within 4% for all cases and a maximum difference of 12% within the iGTV. CONCLUSIONS: Analytic algorithms often do a poor job predicting proton dose in lung tumors, over-predicting the dose to the target by up to 46%, and should not be used unless extensive validation counters the consistent results of the present study. Monte Carlo algorithms showed dramatically improved agreement with physical measurements and should be implemented to better reflect actual delivered dose distributions.
Authors: Barbara Vanderstraeten; Nick Reynaert; Leen Paelinck; Indira Madani; Carlos De Wagter; Werner De Gersem; Wilfried De Neve; Hubert Thierens Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Ngoc Bui Ly; Ritsuko Komaki; Lawrence B Levy; Daniel R Gomez; Joe Y Chang; Pamela K Allen; Reza J Mehran; Charles Lu; Michael Gillin; Zhongxing Liao; James D Cox Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David A Bush; Gregory Cheek; Salman Zaheer; Jason Wallen; Hamid Mirshahidi; Ari Katerelos; Roger Grove; Jerry D Slater Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ryan L Grant; Paige A Summers; James L Neihart; Anthony P Blatnica; Narayan Sahoo; Michael T Gillin; David S Followill; Geoffrey S Ibbott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.102
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: Jiankui Yuan; David Mansur; Min Yao; Tithi Biswas; Yiran Zheng; Rick Jesseph; Jian-Yue Jin; Mitchell Machtay Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-09-05
Authors: Dana J Lewis; Paige A Taylor; David S Followill; Narayan Sahoo; Anita Mahajan; Francesco C Stingo; Stephen F Kry Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2018-07-26