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

Title: SU-F-T-157: Physics Considerations Regarding Dosimetric Accuracy of Analytical Dose Calculations for Small Field Proton Therapy: A Monte Carlo Study

Abstract

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 difference 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.more » 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

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (United States)
  2. (China)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642398
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; ACCURACY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Geng, C, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Daartz, J, Cheung, K, Bussiere, M, Shih, H, Paganetti, H, and Schuemann, J. SU-F-T-157: Physics Considerations Regarding Dosimetric Accuracy of Analytical Dose Calculations for Small Field Proton Therapy: A Monte Carlo Study. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956293.
Geng, C, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Daartz, J, Cheung, K, Bussiere, M, Shih, H, Paganetti, H, & Schuemann, J. SU-F-T-157: Physics Considerations Regarding Dosimetric Accuracy of Analytical Dose Calculations for Small Field Proton Therapy: A Monte Carlo Study. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956293.
Geng, C, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Daartz, J, Cheung, K, Bussiere, M, Shih, H, Paganetti, H, and Schuemann, J. Wed . "SU-F-T-157: Physics Considerations Regarding Dosimetric Accuracy of Analytical Dose Calculations for Small Field Proton Therapy: A Monte Carlo Study". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956293.
@article{osti_22642398,
title = {SU-F-T-157: Physics Considerations Regarding Dosimetric Accuracy of Analytical Dose Calculations for Small Field Proton Therapy: A Monte Carlo Study},
author = {Geng, C and Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing and Daartz, J and Cheung, K and Bussiere, M and Shih, H and Paganetti, H and Schuemann, J},
abstractNote = {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 difference 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).},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956293},
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: To simulate secondary neutron radiation-fields produced at different positions during phantom irradiation inside a scanning proton therapy gantry treatment room. Further, to identify origin, energy distribution and angular emission as function of proton beam energy. Methods: GEANT4 and FLUKA Monte-Carlo codes were used to model the relevant parts of the treatment room in a gantry-equipped pencil beam scanning proton therapy facility including walls, floor, metallic gantry-components, patient table and the homogeneous PMMA target. The proton beams were modeled based on experimental beam ranges in water and spot shapes in air. Neutron energy spectra were simulated at 0°, 45°, 90°more » and 135° relative to the beam axis at 2m distance from isocenter, as well as 11×11 cm2 fields for 75MeV, 140MeV, 200MeV and for 118MeV with 5cm PMMA range-shifter. The total neutron energy distribution was recorded for these four positions and proton energies. Additionally, the room-components generating secondary neutrons in the room and their contributions to the total spectrum were identified and quantified. Results: FLUKA and GEANT4 simulated neutron spectra showed good general agreement in the whole energy range of 10{sup −}9 to 10{sup 2} MeV. Comparison of measured spectra with the simulated contributions of the various room components helped to limit the complexity of the room model, by identifying the dominant contributions to the secondary neutron spectrum. The iron of the bending magnet and counterweight were identified as sources of secondary evaporation-neutrons, which were lacking in simplified room models. Conclusion: Thorough Monte-Carlo simulations have been performed to complement Bonner-sphere spectrometry measurements of secondary neutrons in a clinical proton therapy treatment room. Such calculations helped disentangling the origin of secondary neutrons and their dominant contributions to measured spectra, besides providing a useful validation of widely used Monte-Carlo packages in comparison to experimental data. Cluster of Excellence of the German Research Foundation (DFG) “Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics (MAP)”.« less
  • Purpose: In small field geometries, the electronic equilibrium can be lost, making it challenging for the dose-calculation algorithm to accurately predict the dose, especially in the presence of tissue heterogeneities. In this study, dosimetric accuracy of Monte Carlo (MC) advanced dose calculation and sequential algorithms of Multiplan treatment planning system were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries. Methods: Small open fields of fixed cones of Cyberknife M6 unit 100 to 500 mm2 were used for this study. The fields were incident on in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities and also homogeneous phantom.more » Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtained using CK with the 60 mm fixed cone by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48 hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of MC and sequential algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement between two algorithms and film measurement For MC algorithm, the minimum gamma analysis passing rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.7% and 98.3% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields in the case of lung and bone respectively. For sequential algorithm, the minimum gamma analysis passing rates were 98.9% and 92.5% for for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for used all cone sizes. In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculation algorithms. Overall, when compared to measurement, the MC had better agreement than sequential algorithm. Conclusion: The Monte Carlo calculation algorithm in the Multiplan treatment planning system is an improvement over the existing sequential algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.« less
  • 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: Treatment planning for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer is time-consuming due to the large number of organs-at-risk (OAR) to be considered. As there are many competing objectives and also wide range of acceptable OAR constraints, the final approved plan may not be most optimal for the given structures. We evaluated the dose reduction to the contralateral parotid by implementing standardized constraints during optimization for scanning beam proton therapy planning. Methods: Twenty-four (24) consecutive patients previously treated for base of tongue carcinoma were retrospectively selected. The doses were 70Gy, 63Gy and 57Gy (SIB in 33more » fractions) for high-, intermediate-, and standard-risk clinical target volumes (CTV), respectively; the treatment included bilateral neck. Scanning beams using MFO with standardized bilateral anterior oblique and PA fields were applied. New plans where then developed and optimized by employing additional contralateral parotid constraints at multiple defined dose levels. Using a step-wise iterative process, the volume-based constraints at each level were then further reduced until known target coverages were compromised. The newly developed plans were then compared to the original clinically approved plans using paired student t-testing. Results: All 24 newly optimized treatment plans maintained initial plan quality as compared to the approved plans, and the 98% prescription dose coverage to the CTV’s were not compromised. Representative DVH comparison is shown in FIGURE 1. The contralateral parotid doses were reduced at all levels of interest when systematic constraints were applied to V10, V20, V30 and V40Gy (All P<0.0001; TABLE 1). Overall, the mean contralateral parotid doses were reduced by 2.26 Gy on average, a ∼13% relative improvement. Conclusion: Applying systematic and volume-based contralateral parotid constraints for IMPT planning significantly reduced the dose at all dosimetric levels for patients with base of tongue cancer.« less
  • Purpose: To develop a methodology for validation of a Monte-Carlo dose calculation model for robotic small field SRS/SBRT deliveries. Methods: In a robotic treatment planning system, a Monte-Carlo model was iteratively optimized to match with beam data. A two-part analysis was developed to verify this model. 1) The Monte-Carlo model was validated in a simulated water phantom versus a Ray-Tracing calculation on a single beam collimator-by-collimator calculation. 2) The Monte-Carlo model was validated to be accurate in the most challenging situation, lung, by acquiring in-phantom measurements. A plan was created and delivered in a CIRS lung phantom with film insert.more » Separately, plans were delivered in an in-house created lung phantom with a PinPoint chamber insert within a lung simulating material. For medium to large collimator sizes, a single beam was delivered to the phantom. For small size collimators (10, 12.5, and 15mm), a robotically delivered plan was created to generate a uniform dose field of irradiation over a 2×2cm{sup 2} area. Results: Dose differences in simulated water between Ray-Tracing and Monte-Carlo were all within 1% at dmax and deeper. Maximum dose differences occurred prior to dmax but were all within 3%. Film measurements in a lung phantom show high correspondence of over 95% gamma at the 2%/2mm level for Monte-Carlo. Ion chamber measurements for collimator sizes of 12.5mm and above were within 3% of Monte-Carlo calculated values. Uniform irradiation involving the 10mm collimator resulted in a dose difference of ∼8% for both Monte-Carlo and Ray-Tracing indicating that there may be limitations with the dose calculation. Conclusion: We have developed a methodology to validate a Monte-Carlo model by verifying that it matches in water and, separately, that it corresponds well in lung simulating materials. The Monte-Carlo model and algorithm tested may have more limited accuracy for 10mm fields and smaller.« less