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

被引:38
作者
Yepes, Pablo [1 ,2 ]
Adair, Antony [1 ,2 ]
Grosshans, David [2 ]
Mirkovic, Dragan [2 ]
Poenisch, Falk [2 ]
Titt, Uwe [2 ]
Wang, Qianxia [1 ,2 ]
Mohan, Radhe [2 ]
机构
[1] Rice Univ, Dept Phys & Astron, MS 315,6100 Main St, Houston, TX 77005 USA
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Phys, Unit 1202,1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
IMPT; Monte Carlo; analytical; proton therapy; particle therapy; dose; comparison; TRACK-REPEATING ALGORITHM; PENCIL BEAM ALGORITHM; MONITOR UNIT; IMPLEMENTATION; DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATIONS; VALIDATION; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/aaa845
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
To evaluate the effect of approximations in clinical analytical calculations performed by a treatment planning system (TPS) on dosimetric indices in intensity modulated proton therapy. TPS calculated dose distributions were compared with dose distributions as estimated by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, calculated with the fast dose calculator (FDC) a system previously benchmarked to full MC. This study analyzed a total of 525 patients for four treatment sites (brain, head-and-neck, thorax and prostate). Dosimetric indices (D02, D05, D20, D50, D95, D98, EUD and Mean Dose) and a gamma-index analysis were utilized to evaluate the differences. The gamma-index passing rates for a 3%/3 mm criterion for voxels with a dose larger than 10% of the maximum dose had a median larger than 98% for all sites. The median difference for all dosimetric indices for target volumes was less than 2% for all cases. However, differences for target volumes as large as 10% were found for 2% of the thoracic patients. For organs at risk (OARs), the median absolute dose difference was smaller than 2 Gy for all indices and cohorts. However, absolute dose differences as large as 10 Gy were found for some small volume organs in brain and head-and-neck patients. This analysis concludes that for a fraction of the patients studied, TPS may overestimate the dose in the target by as much as 10%, while for some OARs the dose could be underestimated by as much as 10 Gy. Monte Carlo dose calculations may be needed to ensure more accurate dose computations to improve target coverage and sparing of OARs in proton therapy.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   GEANT4-a simulation toolkit [J].
Agostinelli, S ;
Allison, J ;
Amako, K ;
Apostolakis, J ;
Araujo, H ;
Arce, P ;
Asai, M ;
Axen, D ;
Banerjee, S ;
Barrand, G ;
Behner, F ;
Bellagamba, L ;
Boudreau, J ;
Broglia, L ;
Brunengo, A ;
Burkhardt, H ;
Chauvie, S ;
Chuma, J ;
Chytracek, R ;
Cooperman, G ;
Cosmo, G ;
Degtyarenko, P ;
Dell'Acqua, A ;
Depaola, G ;
Dietrich, D ;
Enami, R ;
Feliciello, A ;
Ferguson, C ;
Fesefeldt, H ;
Folger, G ;
Foppiano, F ;
Forti, A ;
Garelli, S ;
Giani, S ;
Giannitrapani, R ;
Gibin, D ;
Cadenas, JJG ;
González, I ;
Abril, GG ;
Greeniaus, G ;
Greiner, W ;
Grichine, V ;
Grossheim, A ;
Guatelli, S ;
Gumplinger, P ;
Hamatsu, R ;
Hashimoto, K ;
Hasui, H ;
Heikkinen, A ;
Howard, A .
NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, 2003, 506 (03) :250-303
[2]   Validation of GEANT4, an object-oriented Monte Carlo toolkit, for simulations in medical physics [J].
Carrier, JF ;
Archambault, L ;
Beaulieu, L ;
Roy, R .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (03) :484-492
[3]   A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations [J].
Hong, L ;
Goitein, M ;
Bucciolini, M ;
Comiskey, R ;
Gottschalk, B ;
Rosenthal, S ;
Serago, C ;
Urie, M .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1996, 41 (08) :1305-1330
[4]   Geometric interpretation of the γ dose distribution comparison technique:: Interpolation-free calculation [J].
Ju, Tao ;
Simpson, Tim ;
Deasy, Joseph O. ;
Low, Daniel A. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (03) :879-887
[5]   Monte Carlo calculations and measurements of absorbed dose per monitor unit for the treatment of uveal melanoma with proton therapy [J].
Koch, Nicholas ;
Newhauser, Wayne D. ;
Titt, Uwe ;
Gombos, Dan ;
Coombes, Kevin ;
Starkschall, George .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2008, 53 (06) :1581-1594
[6]   A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions [J].
Low, DA ;
Harms, WB ;
Mutic, S ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (05) :656-661
[7]   Clinical implementation of full Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton beam therapy [J].
Paganetti, Harald ;
Jiang, Hongyu ;
Parodi, Katia ;
Slopsema, Roelf ;
Engelsman, Martijn .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2008, 53 (17) :4825-4853
[8]   Implementation of pencil kernel and depth penetration algorithms for treatment planning of proton beams [J].
Russell, KR ;
Isacsson, U ;
Saxner, M ;
Ahnesjö, A ;
Montelius, A ;
Grusell, E ;
Dahlgren, CV ;
Lorin, S ;
Glimelius, B .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2000, 45 (01) :9-27
[9]   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 [J].
Schaffner, B ;
Pedroni, E ;
Lomax, A .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1999, 44 (01) :27-41
[10]   The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning [J].
Schneider, U ;
Pedroni, E ;
Lomax, A .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1996, 41 (01) :111-124