A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy

被引:19
作者
Langner, Ulrich W. [1 ]
Mundis, Michelle [1 ]
Strauss, Dan [1 ]
Zhu, Mingyao [1 ]
Mossahebi, Sina [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Maryland Proton Treatment Ctr, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
关键词
Monte Carlo methods; treatment planning; LOW-DOSE ENVELOPE; DELIVERY-SYSTEM; CANCER; MODEL;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.12235
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. Method: The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty-five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses. Results: The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 +/- 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are -2.06 +/- 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), -0.59 +/- 1.71% for Eclipse and -1.69 +/- 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P-value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t-test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 +/- 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are -3.89 +/- 2.79% for Raystation PB, -0.25 +/- 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 +/- 1.95% for Raystation MC. Conclusion: Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within +/- 3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within +/- 3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.
引用
收藏
页码:156 / 163
页数:8
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Comparison of organ-at-risk sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc photon therapy in head-and-neck cancer [J].
Barten, Danique L. J. ;
Tol, Jim P. ;
Dahele, Max ;
Slotman, Ben J. ;
Verbakel, Wilko F. A. R. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (11) :6589-6598
[2]  
BLATTMANN H, 1990, STRAHLENTHER ONKOL, V166, P45
[3]   Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston [J].
Gillin, Michael T. ;
Sahoo, Narayan ;
Bues, Martin ;
Ciangaru, George ;
Sawakuchi, Gabriel ;
Poenisch, Falk ;
Arjomandy, Bijan ;
Martin, Craig ;
Titt, Uwe ;
Suzuki, Kazumichi ;
Smith, Alfred R. ;
Zhu, X. Ronald .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (01) :154-163
[4]   Influence of multiple scattering and energy loss straggling on the absorbed dose distributions of therapeutic light ion beams: I. Analytical pencil beam model [J].
Hollmark, M ;
Uhrdin, J ;
Belkic, D ;
Gudowska, I ;
Brahme, A .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2004, 49 (14) :3247-3265
[5]  
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2000, IAEA TECHN REP SER, V398
[6]   Quality assurance evaluation of spot scanning beam proton therapy with an anthropomorphic prostate phantom [J].
Iqbal, K. ;
Gillin, M. ;
Summers, P. A. ;
Dhanesar, S. ;
Gifford, K. A. ;
Buzdar, S. A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 86 (1031)
[7]   Comparison of multi-institutional Varian ProBeam pencil beam scanning proton beam commissioning data [J].
Langner, Ulrich W. ;
Eley, John G. ;
Dong, Lei ;
Langen, Katja .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 18 (03) :96-107
[8]   Beam and MLC Commissioning and Assessment of Three Commercial Treatment Planning Systems [J].
Lim, S. ;
LoSasso, T. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (06) :3828-3828
[9]   A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system [J].
Lin, Liyong ;
Huang, Sheng ;
Kang, Minglei ;
Hiltunen, Petri ;
Vanderstraeten, Reynald ;
Lindberg, Jari ;
Siljamaki, Sami ;
Wareing, Todd ;
Davis, Ian ;
Barnett, Allen ;
McGhee, John ;
Simone, Charles B., II ;
Solberg, Timothy D. ;
McDonough, James E. ;
Ainsley, Christopher .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 18 (02) :44-49
[10]   Experimentally validated pencil beam scanning source model in TOPAS [J].
Lin, Liyong ;
Kang, Minglei ;
Solberg, Timothy D. ;
Ainsley, Christopher G. ;
McDonough, James E. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2014, 59 (22) :6859-6873