skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-122: 4Dand 5D Proton Dose Evaluation with Monte Carlo

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated uncertainties in therapeutic proton doses of a lung treatment, taking into account intra-fractional geometry changes, such as breathing, and inter-fractional changes, such as tumor shrinkage and weight loss. Methods: A Monte Carlo study was performed using four dimensional CT image sets (4DCTs) and weekly repeat imaging (5DCTs) to compute fixed RBE (1.1) and variable RBE weighted dose in an actual lung treatment geometry. The MC2 Monte Carlo system was employed to simulate proton energy deposition and LET distributions according to a thoracic cancer treatment plan developed with a 3D-CT in a commercial treatment planning system, as well as in each of the phases of 4DCT sets which were recorded weekly throughout the course of the treatment. A cumulative dose distribution in relevant structures was computed and compared to the predictions of the treatment planning system. Results: Using the Monte Carlo method, dose deposition estimates with the lowest possible uncertainties were produced. Comparison with treatment planning predictions indicates that significant uncertainties may be associated with therapeutic lung dose prediction from treatment planning systems, depending on the magnitude of inter- and intra-fractional geometry changes. Conclusion: As this is just a case study, a more systematic investigation accounting for amore » cohort of patients is warranted; however, this is less practical because Monte Carlo simulations of such cases require enormous computational resources. Hence our study and any future case studies may serve as validation/benchmarking data for faster dose prediction engines, such as the track repeating algorithm, FDC.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642363
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; FORECASTING; GEOMETRY; LUNGS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS

Citation Formats

Titt, U, Mirkovic, D, Yepes, P, Liu, A, Peeler, C, Randenyia, S, and Mohan, R. SU-F-T-122: 4Dand 5D Proton Dose Evaluation with Monte Carlo. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956258.
Titt, U, Mirkovic, D, Yepes, P, Liu, A, Peeler, C, Randenyia, S, & Mohan, R. SU-F-T-122: 4Dand 5D Proton Dose Evaluation with Monte Carlo. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956258.
Titt, U, Mirkovic, D, Yepes, P, Liu, A, Peeler, C, Randenyia, S, and Mohan, R. Wed . "SU-F-T-122: 4Dand 5D Proton Dose Evaluation with Monte Carlo". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956258.
@article{osti_22642363,
title = {SU-F-T-122: 4Dand 5D Proton Dose Evaluation with Monte Carlo},
author = {Titt, U and Mirkovic, D and Yepes, P and Liu, A and Peeler, C and Randenyia, S and Mohan, R},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We evaluated uncertainties in therapeutic proton doses of a lung treatment, taking into account intra-fractional geometry changes, such as breathing, and inter-fractional changes, such as tumor shrinkage and weight loss. Methods: A Monte Carlo study was performed using four dimensional CT image sets (4DCTs) and weekly repeat imaging (5DCTs) to compute fixed RBE (1.1) and variable RBE weighted dose in an actual lung treatment geometry. The MC2 Monte Carlo system was employed to simulate proton energy deposition and LET distributions according to a thoracic cancer treatment plan developed with a 3D-CT in a commercial treatment planning system, as well as in each of the phases of 4DCT sets which were recorded weekly throughout the course of the treatment. A cumulative dose distribution in relevant structures was computed and compared to the predictions of the treatment planning system. Results: Using the Monte Carlo method, dose deposition estimates with the lowest possible uncertainties were produced. Comparison with treatment planning predictions indicates that significant uncertainties may be associated with therapeutic lung dose prediction from treatment planning systems, depending on the magnitude of inter- and intra-fractional geometry changes. Conclusion: As this is just a case study, a more systematic investigation accounting for a cohort of patients is warranted; however, this is less practical because Monte Carlo simulations of such cases require enormous computational resources. Hence our study and any future case studies may serve as validation/benchmarking data for faster dose prediction engines, such as the track repeating algorithm, FDC.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956258},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: Compare proton pencil beam scanning dose measurements to GATE/GEANT4 (GMC) and RayStation™ Monte Carlo (RMC) simulations. Methods: Proton pencil beam models of the IBA gantry at the Seattle Proton Therapy Center were developed in the GMC code system and a research build of the RMC. For RMC, a preliminary beam model that does not account for upstream halo was used. Depth dose and lateral profiles are compared for the RMC, GMC and a RayStation™ pencil beam dose (RPB) model for three spread out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) in homogenous water phantom. SOBP comparisons were also made among the three modelsmore » for a phantom with a (i) 2 cm bone and a (ii) 0.5 cm titanium insert. Results: Measurements and GMC estimates of R80 range agree to within 1 mm, and the mean point-to-point dose difference is within 1.2% for all integrated depth dose (IDD) profiles. The dose differences at the peak are 1 to 2%. All of the simulated spot sigmas are within 0.15 mm of the measured values. For the three SOBPs considered, the maximum R80 deviation from measurement for GMC was −0.35 mm, RMC 0.5 mm, and RPB −0.1 mm. The minimum gamma pass using the 3%/3mm criterion for all the profiles was 94%. The dose comparison for heterogeneous inserts in low dose gradient regions showed dose differences greater than 10% at the distal edge of interface between RPB and GMC. The RMC showed improvement and agreed with GMC to within 7%. Conclusion: The RPB dosimetry show clinically significant differences (> 10%) from GMC and RMC estimates. The RMC algorithm is superior to the RPB dosimetry in heterogeneous media. We suspect modelling of the beam’s halo may be responsible for a portion of the remaining discrepancy and that RayStation will reduce this discrepancy as they finalize the release. Erik Traneus is employed as a Research Scientist at RaySearch Laboratories. The research build of the RayStation TPS used in the study was made available to the SCCA free of charge. RaySearch did not provide any monetary support other than a license to use the research build of the TPS.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of dose calculations by analytical dose calculation methods (ADC) for small field proton therapy in a gantry based passive scattering facility. Methods: 50 patients with intra-cranial disease were evaluated in the study. Treatment plans followed standard prescription and optimization procedures of proton stereotactic radiosurgery. Dose distributions calculated with the Monte Carlo (MC) toolkit TOPAS were used to represent delivered treatments. The MC dose was first adjusted using the output factor (OF) applied clinically. This factor is determined from the field size and the prescribed range. We then introduced a normalization factor to measure the differencemore » in mean dose between the delivered dose (MC dose with OF) and the dose calculated by ADC for each beam. The normalization was determined by the mean dose of the center voxels of the target area. We compared delivered dose distributions and those calculated by ADC in terms of dose volume histogram parameters and beam range distributions. Results: The mean target dose for a whole treatment is generally within 5% comparing delivered dose (MC dose with OF) and ADC dose. However, the differences can be as great as 11% for shallow and small target treated with a thick range compensator. Applying the normalization factor to the MC dose with OF can reduce the mean dose difference to less than 3%. Considering range uncertainties, the generally applied margins (3.5% of the prescribed range + 1mm) to cover uncertainties in range might not be sufficient to guarantee tumor coverage. The range difference for R90 (90% distal dose falloff) is affected by multiple factors, such as the heterogeneity index. Conclusion: This study indicates insufficient accuracy calculating proton doses using ADC. Our results suggest that uncertainties of target doses are reduced using MC techniques, improving the dosimetric accuracy for proton stereotactic radiosurgery. The work was supported by NIH/NCI under CA U19 021239. CG was partially supported by the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11475087).« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this simulation study is to evaluate the proton detectability of gel dosimeters, and estimate the three-dimensional dose distribution of protons in the radiochromic gel and polymer gel dosimeter compared with the dose distribution in water. Methods: The commercial composition ratios of normoxic polymer gel and LCV micelle radiochromic gel were included in this simulation study. The densities of polymer and radiochromic gel were 1.024 and 1.005 g/cm3, respectively. The 50, 80 and 140 MeV proton beam energies were selected. The dose distributions of protons in the polymer and radiochromic gel were simulated using Monte Carlo radiationmore » transport code (MCNPX 2.7.0, Los Alamos Laboratory). The water equivalent depth profiles and the dose distributions of two gel dosimeters were compared for the water. Results: In case of irradiating 50, 80 and 140 MeV proton beam to water phantom, the reference Bragg-peak depths are represented at 2.22, 5.18 and 13.98 cm, respectively. The difference in the water equivalent depth is represented to about 0.17 and 0.37 cm in the radiochromic gel and polymer gel dosimeter, respectively. The proton absorbed doses in the radiochromic gel dosimeter are calculated to 2.41, 3.92 and 6.90 Gy with increment of incident proton energies. In the polymer gel dosimeter, the absorbed doses are calculated to 2.37, 3.85 and 6.78 Gy with increment of incident proton energies. The relative absorbed dose in radiochromic gel (about 0.47 %) is similar to that of water than the relative absorbed dose of polymer gel (about 2.26 %). In evaluating the proton dose distribution, we found that the dose distribution of both gel dosimeters matched that of water in most cases. Conclusion: As the dosimetry device, the radiochromic gel dosimeter has the potential particle detectability and is feasible to use for quality assurance of proton beam therapy beam.« less
  • Purpose: This study will use Monte Carlo to simulate the Cyberknife system, and intend to develop the third-party tool to evaluate the dose verification of specific patient plans in TPS. Methods: By simulating the treatment head using the BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc software, the comparison between the calculated and measured data will be done to determine the beam parameters. The dose distribution calculated in the Raytracing, Monte Carlo algorithms of TPS (Multiplan Ver4.0.2) and in-house Monte Carlo simulation method for 30 patient plans, which included 10 head, lung and liver cases in each, were analyzed. The γ analysis with the combinedmore » 3mm/3% criteria would be introduced to quantitatively evaluate the difference of the accuracy between three algorithms. Results: More than 90% of the global error points were less than 2% for the comparison of the PDD and OAR curves after determining the mean energy and FWHM.The relative ideal Monte Carlo beam model had been established. Based on the quantitative evaluation of dose accuracy for three algorithms, the results of γ analysis shows that the passing rates (84.88±9.67% for head,98.83±1.05% for liver,98.26±1.87% for lung) of PTV in 30 plans between Monte Carlo simulation and TPS Monte Carlo algorithms were good. And the passing rates (95.93±3.12%,99.84±0.33% in each) of PTV in head and liver plans between Monte Carlo simulation and TPS Ray-tracing algorithms were also good. But the difference of DVHs in lung plans between Monte Carlo simulation and Ray-tracing algorithms was obvious, and the passing rate (51.263±38.964%) of γ criteria was not good. It is feasible that Monte Carlo simulation was used for verifying the dose distribution of patient plans. Conclusion: Monte Carlo simulation algorithm developed in the CyberKnife system of this study can be used as a reference tool for the third-party tool, which plays an important role in dose verification of patient plans. This work was supported in part by the grant from Chinese Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 11275105). Thanks for the support from Accuray Corp.« less
  • Purpose: Biological treatment plan optimization is of great interest for proton therapy. It requires extensive Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to compute physical dose and biological quantities. Recently, a gPMC package was developed for rapid MC dose calculations on a GPU platform. This work investigated its suitability for proton therapy biological optimization in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Methods: We performed simulations of a proton pencil beam with energies of 75, 150 and 225 MeV in a homogeneous water phantom using gPMC and FLUKA. Physical dose and energy spectra for each ion type on the central beam axis were scored. Relativemore » Biological Effectiveness (RBE) was calculated using repair-misrepair-fixation model. Microdosimetry calculations were performed using Monte Carlo Damage Simulation (MCDS). Results: Ranges computed by the two codes agreed within 1 mm. Physical dose difference was less than 2.5 % at the Bragg peak. RBE-weighted dose agreed within 5 % at the Bragg peak. Differences in microdosimetric quantities such as dose average lineal energy transfer and specific energy were < 10%. The simulation time per source particle with FLUKA was 0.0018 sec, while gPMC was ∼ 600 times faster. Conclusion: Physical dose computed by FLUKA and gPMC were in a good agreement. The RBE differences along the central axis were small, and RBE-weighted dose difference was found to be acceptable. The combined accuracy and efficiency makes gPMC suitable for proton therapy biological optimization.« less