Evaluation of the systematic error in using 3D dose calculation in scanning beam proton therapy for lung cancer

被引:10
|
作者
Li, Heng [1 ]
Liu, Wei [2 ]
Park, Peter [3 ]
Matney, Jason [4 ]
Liao, Zhongxing [5 ]
Chang, Joe [5 ]
Zhang, Xiaodong [1 ]
Li, Yupeng [6 ]
Zhu, Ronald X. [1 ]
机构
[1] UT MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Phys, Houston, TX USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiat Oncol, Phoenix, AZ USA
[3] Emory Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiat Oncol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] UT MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Houston, TX USA
[6] Varian Med Syst, Appl Res, Palo Alto, CA USA
来源
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS | 2014年 / 15卷 / 05期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
4D CT; motion management; dose calculation; proton therapy; pencil beam scanning; STATISTICAL-ANALYSIS; RADIATION-THERAPY; MOTION; TUMORS; CONTROVERSIES; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION;
D O I
10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4810
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
The objective of this study was to evaluate and understand the systematic error between the planned three-dimensional (3D) dose and the delivered dose to patient in scanning beam proton therapy for lung tumors. Single-field and multifield optimized scanning beam proton therapy plans were generated for ten patients with stage II-III lung cancer with a mix of tumor motion and size. 3D doses in CT datasets for different respiratory phases and the time-weighted average CT, as well as the four-dimensional (4D) doses were computed for both plans. The 3D and 4D dose differences for the targets and different organs at risk were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and voxel-based techniques, and correlated with the extent of tumor motion. The gross tumor volume (GTV) dose was maintained in all 3D and 4D doses, using the internal GTV override technique. The DVH and voxel-based techniques are highly correlated. The mean dose error and the standard deviation of dose error for all target volumes were both less than 1.5% for all but one patient. However, the point dose difference between the 3D and 4D doses was up to 6% for the GTV and greater than 10% for the clinical and planning target volumes. Changes in the 4D and 3D doses were not correlated with tumor motion. The planning technique (single-field or multifield optimized) did not affect the observed systematic error. In conclusion, the dose error in 3D dose calculation varies from patient to patient and does not correlate with lung tumor motion. Therefore, patient-specific evaluation of the 4D dose is important for scanning beam proton therapy for lung tumors.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 56
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Experimental validation of a 4D dose calculation routine for pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Pfeiler, Tina
    Baeumer, Christian
    Engwall, Erik
    Geismar, Dirk
    Spaan, Bernhard
    Timmermann, Beate
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR MEDIZINISCHE PHYSIK, 2018, 28 (02): : 121 - 133
  • [2] Impact of dose engine algorithm in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for breast cancer
    Tommasino, Francesco
    Fellin, Francesco
    Lorentini, Stefano
    Farace, Paolo
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 50 : 7 - 12
  • [3] 4D dose calculation for pencil beam scanning proton therapy of pancreatic cancer using repeated 4DMRI datasets
    Dolde, Kai
    Naumann, Patrick
    David, Christian
    Gnirs, Regula
    Kachelriess, Marc
    Lomax, Antony John
    Saito, Nami
    Weber, Damien Charles
    Pfaffenberger, Asja
    Zhang, Ye
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2018, 63 (16)
  • [4] Evaluation of motion mitigation using abdominal compression in the clinical implementation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy of liver tumors
    Lin, Liyong
    Souris, Kevin
    Kang, Minglei
    Glick, Adam
    Lin, Haibo
    Huang, Sheng
    Stuetzer, Kristin
    Janssens, Guillaume
    Sterpin, Edmond
    Lee, John A.
    Solberg, Timothy D.
    McDonough, James E.
    Simone, Charles B., II
    Ben-Josef, Edgar
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (02) : 703 - 712
  • [5] Fast Pencil Beam Dose calculation for Proton Therapy Using a Double-Gaussian Beam Model
    da Silva, Joakim
    Ansorge, Richard
    Jena, Rajesh
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2015, 5
  • [6] An approach for estimating dosimetric uncertainties in deformable dose accumulation in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for lung cancer
    Amstutz, Florian
    Nenoff, Lena
    Albertini, Francesca
    Ribeiro, Cassia O.
    Knopf, Antje C.
    Unkelbach, Jan
    Weber, Damien C.
    Lomax, Antony J.
    Zhang, Ye
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2021, 66 (10)
  • [7] Surface scanning for 3D dose calculation in intraoperative electron radiation therapy
    Garcia-Vazquez, Veronica
    Sese-Lucio, Begona
    Calvo, Felipe A.
    Vaquero, Juan J.
    Desco, Manuel
    Pascau, Javier
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2018, 13
  • [8] Quantitative Assessment of 3D Dose Rate for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning FLASH Radiotherapy and Its Application for Lung Hypofractionation Treatment Planning
    Kang, Minglei
    Wei, Shouyi
    Choi, J. Isabelle
    Simone, Charles B.
    Lin, Haibo
    CANCERS, 2021, 13 (14)
  • [9] Validation of proton dose calculation on scatter corrected 4D cone beam computed tomography using a porcine lung phantom
    Schmitz, Henning
    Rabe, Moritz
    Janssens, Guillaume
    Bondesson, David
    Rit, Simon
    Parodi, Katia
    Belka, Claus
    Dinkel, Julien
    Kurz, Christopher
    Kamp, Florian
    Landry, Guillaume
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2021, 66 (17)
  • [10] Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review
    Sterpin, E.
    Widesott, L.
    Poels, K.
    Hoogeman, M.
    Korevaar, E. W.
    Lowe, M.
    Molinelli, S.
    Fracchiolla, F.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 197