Literature DB >> 31773039

Clinical Monte Carlo versus Pencil Beam Treatment Planning in Nasopharyngeal Patients Receiving IMPT.

Balu Krishna Sasidharan1, Saif Aljabab2, Jatinder Saini3, Tony Wong3, George Laramore2, Jay Liao2, Upendra Parvathaneni2, Stephen R Bowen4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pencil beam (PB) analytical algorithms have been the standard of care for proton therapy dose calculations. The introduction of Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms may provide more robust and accurate planning and can improve therapeutic benefit. We conducted a dosimetric analysis to quantify the differences between MC and PB algorithms in the clinical setting of dose-painted nasopharyngeal cancer intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plans of 14 patients treated with PB analytical algorithm optimized and calculated (PBPB) were retrospectively analyzed. The PBPB plans were recalculated using MC to generate PBMC plans and, finally, reoptimized and recalculated with MC to generate MCMC plans. The plans were compared across several dosimetric endpoints and correlated with documented toxicity. Robustness of the planning scenarios (PBPB, PBMC, MCMC) in the presence of setup and range uncertainties was compared.
RESULTS: A median decrease of up to 5 Gy (P < .05) was observed in coverage of planning target volume high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk volumes when PB plans were recalculated using the MC algorithm. This loss in coverage was regained by reoptimizing with MC, albeit with a slightly higher dose to normal tissues but within the standard tolerance limits. The robustness of both PB and MC plans remained similar in the presence of setup and range uncertainties. The MC-calculated mean dose to the oral avoidance structure, along with changes in global maximum dose between PB and MC dosimetry, may be associated with acute toxicity-related events.
CONCLUSION: Retrospective analyses of plan dosimetry quantified a loss of coverage with PB that could be recovered under MC optimization. MC optimization should be performed for the complex dosimetry in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma before plan acceptance and should also be used in correlative studies of proton dosimetry with clinical endpoints. © Copyright 2019 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31773039      PMCID: PMC6871622          DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-18-00039.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Part Ther        ISSN: 2331-5180


  8 in total

1.  Intensity-modulated proton therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Decreased radiation dose to normal structures and encouraging clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Gary D Lewis; Emma B Holliday; Esengul Kocak-Uzel; Mike Hernandez; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2015-12-26       Impact factor: 3.147

Review 2.  Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: expanding the therapeutic window.

Authors:  Jonathan E Leeman; Paul B Romesser; Ying Zhou; Sean McBride; Nadeem Riaz; Eric Sherman; Marc A Cohen; Oren Cahlon; Nancy Lee
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  Effect of inhomogeneity in a patient's body on the accuracy of the pencil beam algorithm in comparison to Monte Carlo.

Authors:  T Yamashita; T Akagi; T Aso; A Kimura; T Sasaki
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers.

Authors:  Pierre Blanchard; Gary Brandon Gunn; Alexander Lin; Robert L Foote; Nancy Y Lee; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.934

5.  Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations.

Authors:  Jatinder Saini; Dominic Maes; Alexander Egan; Stephen R Bowen; Sara St James; Martin Janson; Tony Wong; Charles Bloch
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  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

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

Authors:  Pablo Yepes; Antony Adair; David Grosshans; Dragan Mirkovic; Falk Poenisch; Uwe Titt; Qianxia Wang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer.

Authors:  Dominic Maes; Jatinder Saini; Jing Zeng; Ramesh Rengan; Tony Wong; Stephen R Bowen
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04
  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Prostate Cancer Treatment with Pencil Beam Proton Therapy Using Rectal Spacers sans Endorectal Balloons.

Authors:  Matthew Forsthoefel; Ryan Hankins; Elizabeth Ballew; Cara Frame; David DeBlois; Dalong Pang; Pranay Krishnan; Keith Unger; Keith Kowalczyk; John Lynch; Anatoly Dritschilo; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2022-04-06

2.  Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Nasopharynx Cancer: 2-year Outcomes from a Single Institution.

Authors:  Vonetta M Williams; Upendra Parvathaneni; George E Laramore; Saif Aljabab; Tony P Wong; Jay J Liao
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2021-04-22

3.  A systematic study of independently-tuned room-specific PBS beam model in a beam-matched multiroom proton therapy system.

Authors:  Yu-Hua Huang; Chunfeng Fang; Tao Yang; Lin Cao; Gaolong Zhang; Baolin Qu; Yihang Zhang; Zishen Wang; Shouping Xu
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Treatment of ocular tumors through a novel applicator on a conventional proton pencil beam scanning beamline.

Authors:  Rajesh Regmi; Dominic Maes; Alexander Nevitt; Allison Toltz; Erick Leuro; Jonathan Chen; Lia Halasz; Ramesh Rengan; Charles Bloch; Jatinder Saini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 5.  Particle beam therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wai Tong Ng; Barton But; Charlene H L Wong; Cheuk-Wai Choi; Melvin L K Chua; Pierre Blanchard; Anne W M Lee
Journal:  Clin Transl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-08-23

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.