Improvements in pencil beam scanning proton therapy dose calculation accuracy in brain tumor cases with a commercial Monte Carlo algorithm.

A commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm (RayStation version 6.0.024) for the treatment of brain tumors with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy is validated and compared via measurements and analytical calculations in clinically realistic scenarios. For the measurements a 2D ion chamber array detector (MatriXX PT) was placed underneath the following targets: (1) an anthropomorphic head phantom (with two different thicknesses) and (2) a biological sample (i.e. half a lamb's head). In addition, we compared the MC dose engine versus the RayStation pencil beam (PB) algorithm clinically implemented so far, in critical conditions such as superficial targets (i.e. in need of a range shifter (RS)), different air gaps, and gantry angles to simulate both orthogonal and tangential beam arrangements. For every plan the PB and MC dose calculations were compared to measurements using a gamma analysis metrics (3%, 3 mm). For the head phantom the gamma passing rate (GPR) was always  >96% and on average  >99% for the MC algorithm; the PB algorithm had a GPR of  ⩽90% for all the delivery configurations with a single slab (apart 95% GPR from the gantry of 0° and small air gap) and in the case of two slabs of the head phantom the GPR was  >95% only in the case of small air gaps for all three (0°, 45°, and 70°) simulated beam gantry angles. Overall the PB algorithm tends to overestimate the dose to the target (up to 25%) and underestimate the dose to the organ at risk (up to 30%). We found similar results (but a bit worse for the PB algorithm) for the two targets of the lamb's head where only two beam gantry angles were simulated. Our results suggest that in PBS proton therapy a range shifter (RS) needs to be used with caution when planning a treatment with an analytical algorithm due to potentially great discrepancies between the planned dose and the dose delivered to the patient, including in the case of brain tumors where this issue could be underestimated. Our results also suggest that a MC evaluation of the dose has to be performed every time the RS is used and, mostly, when it is used with large air gaps and beam directions tangential to the patient surface.