A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single-field uniform dose pencil beam scanning

被引:8
作者
Doolan, Paul J. [1 ]
Alshaikhi, Jailan [1 ,2 ]
Rosenberg, Ivan [2 ]
Ainsley, Christopher G. [2 ]
Gibson, Adam [1 ]
D'Souza, Derek [2 ]
Bentefour, El Hassane [3 ]
Royle, Gary [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL, Dept Med Phys & Bioengn, London WC1E 6BT, England
[2] Univ Coll London Hosp, Dept Radiotherapy, London, England
[3] Ion Beam Applicat, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
proton therapy; particle therapy; treatment planning; planning comparison; PROSTATE-CANCER; X-RAY; RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT; RADIATION-THERAPY; INTENSITY; OPTIMIZATION; IMRT; UNCERTAINTIES; DELIVERY; SENSITIVITY;
D O I
10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.4996
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
With the number of new proton centers increasing rapidly, there is a need for an assessment of the available proton treatment planning systems (TPSs). This study compares the dose distributions of complex meningioma plans produced by three proton TPSs: Eclipse, Pinnacle(3), and XiO. All three systems were commissioned with the same beam data and, as best as possible, matched configuration settings. Proton treatment plans for ten patients were produced on each system with a pencil beam scanning, single-field uniform dose approach, using a fixed horizontal beamline. All 30 plans were subjected to identical dose constraints, both for the target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing, with a consistent order of priority. Beam geometry, lateral field margins, and lateral spot resolutions were made consistent across all systems. Few statistically significant differences were found between the target coverage and OAR sparing of each system, with all optimizers managing to produce plans within clinical tolerances (D2 < 107% of prescribed dose, D5 < 105%, D95 > 95%, D99 > 90%, and OAR maximum doses) despite strict constraints and overlapping structures.
引用
收藏
页码:86 / 99
页数:14
相关论文
共 54 条
[31]   Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy [J].
Pflugfelder, D. ;
Wilkens, J. J. ;
Oelfke, U. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2008, 53 (06) :1689-1700
[32]   Quantifying lateral tissue heterogeneities in hadron therapy [J].
Pflugfelder, D. ;
Wilkens, J. J. ;
Szymanowski, H. ;
Oelfke, U. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (04) :1506-1513
[33]  
Philips Medical Systems, 2013, PINNACLE3 IMPT SPOT
[34]  
PTCOG, 2013, PROT THER PAT STAT D
[35]   Measurements of lateral penumbra for uniform scanning proton beams under various beam delivery conditions and comparison to the XiO treatment planning system [J].
Rana, Suresh ;
Zeidan, Omar ;
Ramirez, Eric ;
Rains, Michael ;
Gao, Junfang ;
Zheng, Yuanshui .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (09)
[36]   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
[37]   Proton dose calculation based on in-air fluence measurements [J].
Schaffner, Barbara .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2008, 53 (06) :1545-1562
[38]   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
[39]   Treatment planning in proton therapy [J].
Schwarz, M. .
EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL PLUS, 2011, 126 (07) :1-10
[40]   A pencil beam algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy derived from Monte Carlo simulations [J].
Soukup, M ;
Fippel, M ;
Alber, M .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (21) :5089-5104