Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

Trnková, P.; Lomax, A. J.; Weston, S. J.; Lilley, J.; Thompson, C. M.; Cosgrove, V. P.; Short, S. C.; Loughrey, C.; Thwaites, D. I.

doi:10.1118/1.4897571

Title: Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma

Full Record
Other Related Research

Abstract

Purpose: Base of skull meningioma can be treated with both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and spot scanned proton therapy (PT). One of the main benefits of PT is better sparing of organs at risk, but due to the physical and dosimetric characteristics of protons, spot scanned PT can be more sensitive to the uncertainties encountered in the treatment process compared with photon treatment. Therefore, robustness analysis should be part of a comprehensive comparison between these two treatment methods in order to quantify and understand the sensitivity of the treatment techniques to uncertainties. The aim of this work was to benchmark a spot scanning treatment planning system for planning of base of skull meningioma and to compare the created plans and analyze their robustness to setup errors against the IMRT technique. Methods: Plans were produced for three base of skull meningioma cases: IMRT planned with a commercial TPS [Monaco (Elekta AB, Sweden)]; single field uniform dose (SFUD) spot scanning PT produced with an in-house TPS (PSI-plan); and SFUD spot scanning PT plan created with a commercial TPS [XiO (Elekta AB, Sweden)]. A tool for evaluating robustness to random setup errors was created and, for each plan, both a dosimetric evaluationmore »« less

Authors:

Trnková, P.; Lomax, A. J. ^[1]; Weston, S. J.; Lilley, J.; Thompson, C. M.; Cosgrove, V. P. ^[2]; Short, S. C. ^[3]; Loughrey, C. ^[4]; Thwaites, D. I. ^[5]

Paul Scherrer Institute, Centre for Proton Therapy, Villigen 5232 (Switzerland)
St James’s Institute of Oncology, Medical Physics and Engineering, Leeds LS9 7TF (United Kingdom)
Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oncology and Clinical Research, Leeds LS9 7TF, United Kingdomand St James’s Institute of Oncology, Oncology, Leeds LS9 7TF (United Kingdom)
St James’s Institute of Oncology, Oncology, Leeds LS9 7TF (United Kingdom)
St James’s Institute of Oncology, Medical Physics and Engineering, Leeds LS9 7TF, United Kingdomand Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006 (Australia)

Publication Date:: Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014

OSTI Identifier:: 22317943

Resource Type:: Journal Article

Journal Name:: Medical Physics

Additional Journal Information:: Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 11; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0094-2405

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

Subject:: 46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; BENCHMARKS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DOSES; ERRORS; HAZARDS; HOUSES; MONACO; PHOTONS; PLANNING; PROTONS; RADIOTHERAPY; RANDOMNESS; SENSITIVITY; SKULL; SWEDEN; TOOLS

Citation Formats


                    Harding, R., E-mail: ruth.harding2@wales.nhs.uk, Trnková, P., Lomax, A. J., Weston, S. J., Lilley, J., Thompson, C. M., Cosgrove, V. P., Short, S. C., Loughrey, C., and Thwaites, D. I. Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma.  United States: N. p., 2014. 
        Web.  doi:10.1118/1.4897571.

Copy to clipboard


                    Harding, R., E-mail: ruth.harding2@wales.nhs.uk, Trnková, P., Lomax, A. J., Weston, S. J., Lilley, J., Thompson, C. M., Cosgrove, V. P., Short, S. C., Loughrey, C., & Thwaites, D. I. Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma.  United States.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4897571

Copy to clipboard


                    Harding, R., E-mail: ruth.harding2@wales.nhs.uk, Trnková, P., Lomax, A. J., Weston, S. J., Lilley, J., Thompson, C. M., Cosgrove, V. P., Short, S. C., Loughrey, C., and Thwaites, D. I. 2014.  
        "Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma".  United States.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4897571.

Copy to clipboard


                    
@article{osti_22317943,

  title        = {Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: Comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma},

  author       = {Harding, R., E-mail: ruth.harding2@wales.nhs.uk and Trnková, P. and Lomax, A. J. and Weston, S. J. and Lilley, J. and Thompson, C. M. and Cosgrove, V. P. and Short, S. C. and Loughrey, C. and Thwaites, D. I.},

  abstractNote = {Purpose: Base of skull meningioma can be treated with both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and spot scanned proton therapy (PT). One of the main benefits of PT is better sparing of organs at risk, but due to the physical and dosimetric characteristics of protons, spot scanned PT can be more sensitive to the uncertainties encountered in the treatment process compared with photon treatment. Therefore, robustness analysis should be part of a comprehensive comparison between these two treatment methods in order to quantify and understand the sensitivity of the treatment techniques to uncertainties. The aim of this work was to benchmark a spot scanning treatment planning system for planning of base of skull meningioma and to compare the created plans and analyze their robustness to setup errors against the IMRT technique. Methods: Plans were produced for three base of skull meningioma cases: IMRT planned with a commercial TPS [Monaco (Elekta AB, Sweden)]; single field uniform dose (SFUD) spot scanning PT produced with an in-house TPS (PSI-plan); and SFUD spot scanning PT plan created with a commercial TPS [XiO (Elekta AB, Sweden)]. A tool for evaluating robustness to random setup errors was created and, for each plan, both a dosimetric evaluation and a robustness analysis to setup errors were performed. Results: It was possible to create clinically acceptable treatment plans for spot scanning proton therapy of meningioma with a commercially available TPS. However, since each treatment planning system uses different methods, this comparison showed different dosimetric results as well as different sensitivities to setup uncertainties. The results confirmed the necessity of an analysis tool for assessing plan robustness to provide a fair comparison of photon and proton plans. Conclusions: Robustness analysis is a critical part of plan evaluation when comparing IMRT plans with spot scanned proton therapy plans.},

  doi          = {10.1118/1.4897571},

  url          = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/22317943},
  journal      = {Medical Physics},

  issn         = {0094-2405},

  number       = 11,

  volume       = 41,

  place        = {United States},

  year         = {Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},

  month        = {Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}

}

Copy to clipboard

Journal Article:

https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4897571

Other availability

Find in Google Scholar

Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal

Save / Share:

Export Metadata

Save to My Library

Similar records in OSTI.GOV collections:

SU-F-T-186: A Treatment Planning Study of Normal Tissue Sparing with Robustness Optimized IMPT, 4Pi IMRT, and VMAT for Head and Neck Cases

Journal Article Zhang, J; Li, X; Ding, X; ... - Medical Physics

Purpose: We performed a retrospective dosimetric comparison study between the robustness optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (RO-IMPT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and the non-coplanar 4? intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). These methods represent the most advanced radiation treatment methods clinically available. We compare their dosimetric performance for head and neck cancer treatments with special focus on the OAR sparing near the tumor volumes. Methods: A total of 11 head and neck cases, which include 10 recurrent cases and one bilateral case, were selected for the study. Different dose levels were prescribed to tumor target depending on disease and location. Threemore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4956323
SU-E-T-73: A Robust Proton Beam Therapy Technique for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Whole Pelvis Irradiation: Bilateral Opposed Single Field Uniform Dose (SFUD) Plan with Lateral Penumbra Gradient Matching

Journal Article Ding, X; Wu, H; Rosen, L - Medical Physics

Purpose: To develop a clinical feasible and robust proton therapy technique to spare bowel, bladder and rectum for high-risk prostate cancer patients Methods: The study includes 3 high-risk prostate cancer cases treated with bilateral opposed SFUD with lateral penumbra gradient matching technique prescribed to 5400cGyE in 30 fx in our institution. To treat whole pelvic lymph node chain, the complicated ‘H’ shape, using SFUD technique, we divided the target into two sub-targets (LLAT beam treating ‘90 degree T-shape’ and RLAT beam treating ‘: shape’) in Plan A and use lateral penumbra gradient matching at patient’s left side. Vice verse inmore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4924434
SU-E-T-765: Treatment Planning Comparison of SFUD Proton and 4Ï€ Radiotherapy for Prostate Cases

Journal Article Tran, A; Woods, K; Yu, V; ... - Medical Physics

Purpose: Single-Field Uniform Dose (SFUD) proton scanning beams and non-coplanar 4π intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represent the most advanced treatment methods based on heavy ion and X-rays, respectively. Here we compare their performance for prostate treatment. Methods: Five prostate patients were planned using 4π radiotherapy and SFUD to an initial dose of 54Gy to a planning target volume (PTV) that encompassed the prostate and seminal vesicles, then a boost prescription dose of 25.2Gy to the prostate for a total dose of 79.2 Gy. 4π plans were created by inversely selecting and optimizing 30 beams from 1162 candidate non-coplanar beams usingmore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4925129
Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer

Journal Article Quan, Enzhuo; Liu, Wei; Wu, Richard; ... - Medical Physics

Purpose: Spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) using multifield optimization (MFO) can generate highly conformal dose distributions, but it is more sensitive to setup and range uncertainties than SSPT using single-field optimization (SFO). The authors compared the two optimization methods for the treatment of head and neck cancer with bilateral targets and determined the superior method on the basis of both the plan quality and the plan robustness in the face of setup and range uncertainties.Methods: Four patients with head and neck cancer with bilateral targets who received SSPT treatment in the authors' institution were studied. The patients had each been treatedmore »« less
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4813900
SU-F-T-215: An Investigation Of Multi-Scanner CT Hounsfield Unit Calibration for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Using 3D Gamma Analysis

Journal Article Zhang, J; Li, X; Liu, G; ... - Medical Physics

Purpose: We compare and investigate the dosimetric impacts on pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton treatment plans generated with CT calibration curves from four different CT scanners and one averaged ‘global’ CT calibration curve. Methods: The four CT scanners are located at three different hospital locations within the same health system. CT density calibration curves were collected from these scanners using the same CT calibration phantom and acquisition parameters. Mass density to HU value tables were then commissioned in a commercial treatment planning system. Five disease sites were chosen for dosimetric comparisons at brain, lung, head and neck, adrenal, and prostate.more »« less
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4956354

Similar Records