Literature DB >> 29339570

Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy.

Pablo Yepes1, Antony Adair, David Grosshans, Dragan Mirkovic, Falk Poenisch, Uwe Titt, Qianxia Wang, Radhe Mohan.   

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of approximations in clinical analytical calculations performed by a treatment planning system (TPS) on dosimetric indices in intensity modulated proton therapy. TPS calculated dose distributions were compared with dose distributions as estimated by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, calculated with the fast dose calculator (FDC) a system previously benchmarked to full MC. This study analyzed a total of 525 patients for four treatment sites (brain, head-and-neck, thorax and prostate). Dosimetric indices (D02, D05, D20, D50, D95, D98, EUD and Mean Dose) and a gamma-index analysis were utilized to evaluate the differences. The gamma-index passing rates for a 3%/3 mm criterion for voxels with a dose larger than 10% of the maximum dose had a median larger than 98% for all sites. The median difference for all dosimetric indices for target volumes was less than 2% for all cases. However, differences for target volumes as large as 10% were found for 2% of the thoracic patients. For organs at risk (OARs), the median absolute dose difference was smaller than 2 Gy for all indices and cohorts. However, absolute dose differences as large as 10 Gy were found for some small volume organs in brain and head-and-neck patients. This analysis concludes that for a fraction of the patients studied, TPS may overestimate the dose in the target by as much as 10%, while for some OARs the dose could be underestimated by as much as 10 Gy. Monte Carlo dose calculations may be needed to ensure more accurate dose computations to improve target coverage and sparing of OARs in proton therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29339570      PMCID: PMC5906701          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaa845

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


  20 in total

1.  Implementation of pencil kernel and depth penetration algorithms for treatment planning of proton beams.

Authors:  K R Russell; U Isacsson; M Saxner; A Ahnesjö; A Montelius; E Grusell; C V Dahlgren; S Lorin; B Glimelius
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation.

Authors:  B Schaffner; E Pedroni; A Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Validation of GEANT4, an object-oriented Monte Carlo toolkit, for simulations in medical physics.

Authors:  J F Carrier; L Archambault; L Beaulieu; R Roy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A technique for calculating range spectra of charged particle beams distal to thick inhomogeneities.

Authors:  U Schneider; B Schaffner; T Lomax; E Pedroni; A Tourovsky
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A proton dose calculation algorithm for conformal therapy simulations based on Molière's theory of lateral deflections.

Authors:  J O Deasy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Validation of a track repeating algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy: clinical cases study.

Authors:  Pablo P Yepes; John G Eley; Amy Liu; Dragan Mirkovic; Sharmalee Randeniya; Uwe Titt; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Pencil Beam Algorithms Are Unsuitable for Proton Dose Calculations in Lung.

Authors:  Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry; David S Followill
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  A TRACK-REPEATING ALGORITHM FOR FAST MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATIONS OF PROTON RADIOTHERAPY.

Authors:  Pablo Yepes; Sharmalee Randeniya; Phillip J Taddei; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Nucl Technol       Date:  2009-12-01

9.  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

10.  Clinical implementation of full Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton beam therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Hongyu Jiang; Katia Parodi; Roelf Slopsema; Martijn Engelsman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

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 beam therapy for cancer in the era of precision medicine.

Authors:  Man Hu; Liyang Jiang; Xiangli Cui; Jianguang Zhang; Jinming Yu
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 17.388

8.  Highly efficient and sensitive patient-specific quality assurance for spot-scanned proton therapy.

Authors:  J E Johnson; C Beltran; H Wan Chan Tseung; D W Mundy; J J Kruse; T J Whitaker; M G Herman; K M Furutani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Fixed- versus Variable-RBE Computations for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Pablo Yepes; Antony Adair; Steven J Frank; David R Grosshans; Zhongxing Liao; Amy Liu; Dragan Mirkovic; Falk Poenisch; Uwe Titt; Qianxia Wang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-12-13

10.  Sensitivity analysis of Monte Carlo model of a gantry-mounted passively scattered proton system.

Authors:  Milad Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi; Francisco Reynoso; Michael T Prusator; Baozhou Sun; Tianyu Zhao
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.