SU‐E‐T‐451: Patient and Site‐Specific Assessment of the Value of Routine Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Proton Therapy

J. Schuemann, M. Testa, M. Bueno, Chulhee Min, M. Moteabbed, D. Giantsoudi, H. Paganetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the clinical impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations in proton therapy by analyzing uncertainties of analytical algorithms when predicting dose to target and critical structures and beam ranges in patient geometries. Methods: We used TOPAS to simulate double scattering proton treatments, which were compared to analytical treatment planning dose calculations (TPC). We investigated: 1)beam ranges, dose distributions, does‐rate profiles and output factors using various dedicated experiments.range differences caused by the patient heterogeneity considering 48 fields and 4 treatment sites. We calculated distal 2)dose surfaces composed of beam ranges and assessed average range difference (dR) and root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD).3)dose delivery accuracy using a DVH based analysis considering patient treatment plans from 3 sites. 4)the accuracy of dose delivery for small fields (diameter below 7cm) based on patient heterogeneity for 38 head fields. We assess differences in D50. Results: 1)MC and measurements agree within statistical uncertainties.2)For 3 of 4 patient sites the RMSD between TPC and TOPAS was <2mm. Head treatments indicate significant RMSD of up to 6mm. 3)TPC DVHs showed underdosage for head cases by 2% compared to TOPAS, discrepancies in critical volumes can reach up to 50%, prostate patients show significant penumbra differences, liver patients show good agreement between TOPAS and TPC. The site‐specific findings can be explained by beam range and geometrical complexities.4)For small proton fields, discrepancies of up to 5.4% were found in D50 for single fields. A clear correlation between the accuracy and patient heterogeneity was established. Conclusion: This study highlights treatment sites and scenarios where MC simulations are recommended for proton therapy, i.e. small fields (due to scattering disequilibrium) and head treatments with bone/air/tissue interfaces affecting the ability of analytical algorithms to predict the correct beam range. Absolute dose differences where typically within 2% for large fields.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages1
JournalMedical physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Proton Therapy
Head
Therapeutics
Protons
Uncertainty
Prostate
Air

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Schuemann, J. ; Testa, M. ; Bueno, M. ; Min, Chulhee ; Moteabbed, M. ; Giantsoudi, D. ; Paganetti, H. / SU‐E‐T‐451 : Patient and Site‐Specific Assessment of the Value of Routine Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Proton Therapy. In: Medical physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6.
@article{59fd1b2b3a284ab4a44f7a33011d90e3,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐451: Patient and Site‐Specific Assessment of the Value of Routine Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Proton Therapy",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the clinical impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations in proton therapy by analyzing uncertainties of analytical algorithms when predicting dose to target and critical structures and beam ranges in patient geometries. Methods: We used TOPAS to simulate double scattering proton treatments, which were compared to analytical treatment planning dose calculations (TPC). We investigated: 1)beam ranges, dose distributions, does‐rate profiles and output factors using various dedicated experiments.range differences caused by the patient heterogeneity considering 48 fields and 4 treatment sites. We calculated distal 2)dose surfaces composed of beam ranges and assessed average range difference (dR) and root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD).3)dose delivery accuracy using a DVH based analysis considering patient treatment plans from 3 sites. 4)the accuracy of dose delivery for small fields (diameter below 7cm) based on patient heterogeneity for 38 head fields. We assess differences in D50. Results: 1)MC and measurements agree within statistical uncertainties.2)For 3 of 4 patient sites the RMSD between TPC and TOPAS was <2mm. Head treatments indicate significant RMSD of up to 6mm. 3)TPC DVHs showed underdosage for head cases by 2{\%} compared to TOPAS, discrepancies in critical volumes can reach up to 50{\%}, prostate patients show significant penumbra differences, liver patients show good agreement between TOPAS and TPC. The site‐specific findings can be explained by beam range and geometrical complexities.4)For small proton fields, discrepancies of up to 5.4{\%} were found in D50 for single fields. A clear correlation between the accuracy and patient heterogeneity was established. Conclusion: This study highlights treatment sites and scenarios where MC simulations are recommended for proton therapy, i.e. small fields (due to scattering disequilibrium) and head treatments with bone/air/tissue interfaces affecting the ability of analytical algorithms to predict the correct beam range. Absolute dose differences where typically within 2{\%} for large fields.",
author = "J. Schuemann and M. Testa and M. Bueno and Chulhee Min and M. Moteabbed and D. Giantsoudi and H. Paganetti",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814884",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

SU‐E‐T‐451 : Patient and Site‐Specific Assessment of the Value of Routine Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Proton Therapy. / Schuemann, J.; Testa, M.; Bueno, M.; Min, Chulhee; Moteabbed, M.; Giantsoudi, D.; Paganetti, H.

In: Medical physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 01.01.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐451

T2 - Patient and Site‐Specific Assessment of the Value of Routine Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Proton Therapy

AU - Schuemann, J.

AU - Testa, M.

AU - Bueno, M.

AU - Min, Chulhee

AU - Moteabbed, M.

AU - Giantsoudi, D.

AU - Paganetti, H.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the clinical impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations in proton therapy by analyzing uncertainties of analytical algorithms when predicting dose to target and critical structures and beam ranges in patient geometries. Methods: We used TOPAS to simulate double scattering proton treatments, which were compared to analytical treatment planning dose calculations (TPC). We investigated: 1)beam ranges, dose distributions, does‐rate profiles and output factors using various dedicated experiments.range differences caused by the patient heterogeneity considering 48 fields and 4 treatment sites. We calculated distal 2)dose surfaces composed of beam ranges and assessed average range difference (dR) and root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD).3)dose delivery accuracy using a DVH based analysis considering patient treatment plans from 3 sites. 4)the accuracy of dose delivery for small fields (diameter below 7cm) based on patient heterogeneity for 38 head fields. We assess differences in D50. Results: 1)MC and measurements agree within statistical uncertainties.2)For 3 of 4 patient sites the RMSD between TPC and TOPAS was <2mm. Head treatments indicate significant RMSD of up to 6mm. 3)TPC DVHs showed underdosage for head cases by 2% compared to TOPAS, discrepancies in critical volumes can reach up to 50%, prostate patients show significant penumbra differences, liver patients show good agreement between TOPAS and TPC. The site‐specific findings can be explained by beam range and geometrical complexities.4)For small proton fields, discrepancies of up to 5.4% were found in D50 for single fields. A clear correlation between the accuracy and patient heterogeneity was established. Conclusion: This study highlights treatment sites and scenarios where MC simulations are recommended for proton therapy, i.e. small fields (due to scattering disequilibrium) and head treatments with bone/air/tissue interfaces affecting the ability of analytical algorithms to predict the correct beam range. Absolute dose differences where typically within 2% for large fields.

AB - Purpose: To assess the clinical impact of Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations in proton therapy by analyzing uncertainties of analytical algorithms when predicting dose to target and critical structures and beam ranges in patient geometries. Methods: We used TOPAS to simulate double scattering proton treatments, which were compared to analytical treatment planning dose calculations (TPC). We investigated: 1)beam ranges, dose distributions, does‐rate profiles and output factors using various dedicated experiments.range differences caused by the patient heterogeneity considering 48 fields and 4 treatment sites. We calculated distal 2)dose surfaces composed of beam ranges and assessed average range difference (dR) and root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD).3)dose delivery accuracy using a DVH based analysis considering patient treatment plans from 3 sites. 4)the accuracy of dose delivery for small fields (diameter below 7cm) based on patient heterogeneity for 38 head fields. We assess differences in D50. Results: 1)MC and measurements agree within statistical uncertainties.2)For 3 of 4 patient sites the RMSD between TPC and TOPAS was <2mm. Head treatments indicate significant RMSD of up to 6mm. 3)TPC DVHs showed underdosage for head cases by 2% compared to TOPAS, discrepancies in critical volumes can reach up to 50%, prostate patients show significant penumbra differences, liver patients show good agreement between TOPAS and TPC. The site‐specific findings can be explained by beam range and geometrical complexities.4)For small proton fields, discrepancies of up to 5.4% were found in D50 for single fields. A clear correlation between the accuracy and patient heterogeneity was established. Conclusion: This study highlights treatment sites and scenarios where MC simulations are recommended for proton therapy, i.e. small fields (due to scattering disequilibrium) and head treatments with bone/air/tissue interfaces affecting the ability of analytical algorithms to predict the correct beam range. Absolute dose differences where typically within 2% for large fields.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024776681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024776681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814884

DO - 10.1118/1.4814884

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024776681

VL - 40

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -