Literature DB >> 30641496

Evaluation of the ray-casting analytical algorithm for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

Carla Winterhalter1, Stefan Zepter, Sojin Shim, Gabriel Meier, Alessandra Bolsi, Anna Fredh, Jan Hrbacek, David Oxley, Ye Zhang, Damien C Weber, Antony Lomax, Sairos Safai.   

Abstract

For pencil beam scanned (PBS) proton therapy, analytical dose calculation engines are still typically used for the optimisation process, and often for the final evaluation of the plan. Recently however, the suitability of analytical calculations for planning PBS treatments has been questioned. Conceptually, the two main approaches for these analytical dose calculations are the ray-casting (RC) and the pencil-beam (PB) method. In this study, we compare dose distributions and dosimetric indices, calculated on both the clinical dose calculation grid and as a function of dose grid resolution, to Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. The analysis is done using a comprehensive set of clinical plans which represent a wide choice of treatment sites. When analysing dose difference histograms for relative treatment plans, pencil beam calculations with double grid resolution perform best, with on average 97.7%/91.9% (RC), 97.9%/92.7% (RC, double grid resolution), 97.6%/91.0% (PB) and 98.6%/94.0% (PB, double grid resolution) of voxels agreeing within  ±5%/±  3% between the analytical and the MC calculations. Even though these point-to-point dose comparison shows differences between analytical and MC calculations, for all algorithms, clinically relevant dosimetric indices agree within  ±4% for the PTV and within  ±5% for critical organs. While the clinical agreement depends on the treatment site, there is no substantial difference of indices between the different algorithms. The pencil-beam approach however comes at a higher computational cost than the ray-casting calculation. In conclusion, we would recommend using the ray-casting algorithm for fast dose optimization and subsequently combine it with one MC calculation to scale the absolute dose and assure the quality of the treatment plan.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30641496     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aafe58

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Pablo Botas; Gregory C Sharp; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  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

3.  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 4.  MR-guided proton therapy: a review and a preview.

Authors:  Aswin Hoffmann; Bradley Oborn; Maryam Moteabbed; Susu Yan; Thomas Bortfeld; Antje Knopf; Herman Fuchs; Dietmar Georg; Joao Seco; Maria Francesca Spadea; Oliver Jäkel; Christopher Kurz; Katia Parodi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Commissioning a newly developed treatment planning system, VQA Plan, for fast-raster scanning of carbon-ion beams.

Authors:  Masashi Yagi; Toshiro Tsubouchi; Noriaki Hamatani; Masaaki Takashina; Hiroyasu Maruo; Shinichiro Fujitaka; Hideaki Nihongi; Kazuhiko Ogawa; Tatsuaki Kanai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 3.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.