OBJECTIVES: Software re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. METHODS: A MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber. RESULTS: TPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.
OBJECTIVES: Software re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. METHODS: A MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber. RESULTS: TPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.
Authors: Joost Mathijs Verburg; Clemens Grassberger; Stephen Dowdell; Jan Schuemann; Joao Seco; Harald Paganetti Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-11-22
Authors: S Jan; D Benoit; E Becheva; T Carlier; F Cassol; P Descourt; T Frisson; L Grevillot; L Guigues; L Maigne; C Morel; Y Perrot; N Rehfeld; D Sarrut; D R Schaart; S Stute; U Pietrzyk; D Visvikis; N Zahra; I Buvat Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: L Grevillot; D J Boersma; H Fuchs; A Aitkenhead; A Elia; M Bolsa; C Winterhalter; M Vidal; S Jan; U Pietrzyk; L Maigne; D Sarrut Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alessio Elia; Andreas Franz Resch; Antonio Carlino; Till Tobias Böhlen; Hermann Fuchs; Hugo Palmans; Virgile Letellier; Ralf Dreindl; Jhonnatan Osorio; Markus Stock; David Sarrut; Loïc Grevillot Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Edward A K Smith; N T Henthorn; J W Warmenhoven; S P Ingram; A H Aitkenhead; J C Richardson; P Sitch; A L Chadwick; T S A Underwood; M J Merchant; N G Burnet; N F Kirkby; K J Kirkby; R I Mackay Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stewart Mein; Benedikt Kopp; Anthony Vela; Pauline Dutheil; Paul Lesueur; Dinu Stefan; Jürgen Debus; Thomas Haberer; Amir Abdollahi; Andrea Mairani; Thomas Tessonnier Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.481