Literature DB >> 29876316

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

Jatinder Saini1, Erik Traneus2, Dominic Maes1, Rajesh Regmi1, Stephen R Bowen1,3, Charles Bloch1,4, Tony Wong1.   

Abstract

The accuracy of dose calculation is vital to the quality of care for patients undergoing proton beam therapy (PBT). Currently, the dose calculation algorithms available in commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) in PBT are classified into two classes: pencil beam (PB) and Monte-Carlo (MC) algorithms. PB algorithms are still regarded as the standard of practice in PBT, but they are analytical approximations whereas MC algorithms use random sampling of interaction cross-sections that represent the underlying physics to simulate individual particles trajectories. This article provides a brief review of PB and MC dose calculation algorithms employed in commercial treatment planning systems and their performance comparison in phantoms through simulations and measurements. Deficiencies of PB algorithms are first highlighted by a simplified simulation demonstrating the transport of a single sub-spot of proton beam that is incident at an oblique angle in a water phantom. Next, more typical cases of clinical beams in water phantom are presented and compared to measurements. The inability of PB to correctly predict the range and subsequently distal fall-off is emphasized. Through the presented examples, it is shown how dose errors as high as 30% can result with use of a PB algorithm. These dose errors can be minimized to clinically acceptable levels of less than 5%, if MC algorithm is employed in TPS. As a final illustration, comparison between PB and MC algorithm is made for a clinical beam that is use to deliver uniform dose to a target in a lung section of an anthropomorphic phantom. It is shown that MC algorithm is able to correctly predict the dose at all depths and matched with measurements. For PB algorithm, there is an increasing mismatch with the measured doses with increasing tissue heterogeneity. The findings of this article provide a foundation for the second article of this series to compare MC vs. PB based lung cancer treatment planning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms; Proton therapy; analytical dose calculation algorithms; pencil beam dose calculation algorithms; pencil beam scanning; spot scanning

Year:  2018        PMID: 29876316      PMCID: PMC5960652          DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.04.05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res        ISSN: 2218-6751


  14 in total

1.  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

2.  Monte Carlo dose calculations for spot scanned proton therapy.

Authors:  A Tourovsky; A J Lomax; U Schneider; E Pedroni
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  An algorithm to assess the need for clinical Monte Carlo dose calculation for small proton therapy fields based on quantification of tissue heterogeneity.

Authors:  M Bueno; H Paganetti; M A Duch; J Schuemann
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations.

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

Review 5.  Impact of dose calculation algorithm on radiation therapy.

Authors:  Wen-Zhou Chen; Ying Xiao; Jun Li
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-28

6.  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

7.  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

8.  SU-E-T-500: Pencil-Beam versus Monte Carlo Based Dose Calculation for Proton Therapy Patients with Complex Geometries. Clinical Use of the TOPAS Monte Carlo System.

Authors:  J Schuemann; J Shin; J Perl; C Grassberger; J Verburg; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Proton therapy in clinical practice.

Authors:  Hui Liu; Joe Y Chang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer       Date:  2011-05

10.  A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system.

Authors:  Liyong Lin; Sheng Huang; Minglei Kang; Petri Hiltunen; Reynald Vanderstraeten; Jari Lindberg; Sami Siljamaki; Todd Wareing; Ian Davis; Allen Barnett; John McGhee; Charles B Simone; Timothy D Solberg; James E McDonough; Christopher Ainsley
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  9 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.  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

3.  The influence of beam delivery uncertainty on dose uniformity and penumbra for pencil beam scanning in carbon-ion radiotherapy.

Authors:  Yue Li; Yunzhe Gao; Xinguo Liu; Jian Shi; Jiawen Xia; Jiancheng Yang; Lijun Mao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Physics of Particle Beam and Hypofractionated Beam Delivery in NSCLC.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Clemens Grassberger; Gregory C Sharp
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 5.421

5.  Radiation and immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated pneumonitis risk stratification in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: role of functional lung radiomics?

Authors:  Hannah M T Thomas; Daniel S Hippe; Parisa Forouzannezhad; Balu Krishna Sasidharan; Paul E Kinahan; Robert S Miyaoka; Hubert J Vesselle; Ramesh Rengan; Jing Zeng; Stephen R Bowen
Journal:  Discov Oncol       Date:  2022-09-01

6.  Dose distribution effects of spot-scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi-leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors.

Authors:  Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu; Tomohiro Yamashita; Masayuki Mima; Yusuke Demizu; Takeshi Suzuki; Toshinori Soejima
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Contour-based lung dose prediction for breast proton therapy.

Authors:  Chuan Zeng; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Phantom design and dosimetric characterization for multiple simultaneous cell irradiations with active pencil beam scanning.

Authors:  Monika Clausen; Suphalak Khachonkham; Sylvia Gruber; Peter Kuess; Rolf Seemann; Barbara Knäusl; Elisabeth Mara; Hugo Palmans; Wolfgang Dörr; Dietmar Georg
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness.

Authors:  Yolanda D Tseng; Shadonna M Maes; Gregory Kicska; Patricia Sponsellor; Erik Traneus; Tony Wong; Robert D Stewart; Jatinder Saini
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 3.481

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.