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
  • [31] Evaluation of kV-CBCT based 3D dose calculation accuracy and its validation using delivery fluence derived dose metrics in Head and Neck Cancer
    Shinde, Prashantkumar
    Jadhav, Anand
    Shankar, V.
    Gupta, Karan Kumar
    Dhoble, Nirupama S.
    Dhoble, Sanjay
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 96 : 32 - 45
  • [32] A software toes for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms
    Harms, WB
    Low, DA
    Wong, JW
    Purdy, JA
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (10) : 1830 - 1836
  • [33] Clinical Efficacy & Dose Analysis of Salvage Prostate Cancer Retreatments using Proton Beam Scanning
    Shang, Charles
    Ramirez, Salina
    Evans, Grant
    Williams, Timothy R.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 194 : S2347 - S2348
  • [34] Accelerated dose escalation with proton beam therapy for non-small cell lung cancer
    Gomez, Daniel R.
    Chang, Joe Y.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2014, 6 (04) : 348 - 355
  • [35] Radiation dose calculation in 3D heterogeneous media using artificial neural networks
    Keal, James
    Santos, Alexandre
    Penfold, Scott
    Douglass, Michael
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (05) : 2637 - 2645
  • [36] High dose hypofractionated proton beam therapy is a safe and feasible treatment for central lung cancer
    Ono, Takashi
    Yabuuchi, Tomonori
    Nakamura, Tatsuya
    Kimura, Kanako
    Azami, Yusuke
    Hirose, Katsumi
    Suzuki, Motohisa
    Wada, Hitoshi
    Kikuchi, Yasuhiro
    Nemoto, Kenji
    RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, 2017, 51 (03) : 324 - 330
  • [37] Proton beam therapy delivered using pencil beam scanning vs. passive scattering/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Comparative toxicity analysis of PCG 001-09
    Mishra, Mark, V
    Khairnar, Rahul
    Bentzen, Soren M.
    Larson, Gary
    Tsai, Henry
    Sinesi, Christopher
    Vargas, Carlos
    Laramore, George
    Rossi, Carl
    Rosen, Lane
    Zhu, Mingyao
    Hartsell, William
    CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2019, 19 : 80 - 86
  • [38] An approximate analytical formula for 3D dose deposition in water by a Gaussian proton beam
    Nichelatti, E.
    Ronsivalle, C.
    NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS, 2025, 562
  • [39] Feasibility of Proton Beam Therapy for Ocular Melanoma Using a Novel 3D Treatment Planning Technique
    Hartsell, William F.
    Kapur, Rashmi
    Hartsell, Siobhan O'Connor
    Sweeney, Patrick
    Lopes, Caitlin
    Duggal, Amanda
    Cohen, Jack
    Chang, John
    Polasani, Rajeev S.
    Dunn, Megan
    Pankuch, Mark
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2016, 95 (01): : 353 - 359
  • [40] Evaluation and second check of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine for small-field apertures in pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Holmes, Jason
    Shen, Jiajian
    Shan, Jie
    Patrick, Christopher L.
    Wong, William W.
    Foote, Robert L.
    Patel, Samir H.
    Bues, Martin
    Liu, Wei
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 49 (05) : 3497 - 3506