Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE To assess the impact of approximations in current analytical dose calculation methods (ADCs) on tumor control probability (TCP) in proton therapy. METHODS Dose distributions planned with ADC were compared with delivered dose distributions as determined by Monte Carlo simulations. A total of 50 patients were investigated in this analysis with 10 patients per site for 5 treatment sites (head and neck, lung, breast, prostate, liver). Differences were evaluated using dosimetric indices based on a dose-volume histogram analysis, a γ-index analysis, and estimations of TCP. RESULTS We found that ADC overestimated the target doses on average by 1% to 2% for all patients considered. The mean dose, D95, D50, and D02 (the dose value covering 95%, 50% and 2% of the target volume, respectively) were predicted within 5% of the delivered dose. The γ-index passing rate for target volumes was above 96% for a 3%/3 mm criterion. Differences in TCP were up to 2%, 2.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 11% for liver and breast, prostate, head and neck, and lung patients, respectively. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities for bladder and anterior rectum of prostate patients were less than 3%. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that current dose calculation algorithms lead to underdosage of the target by as much as 5%, resulting in differences in TCP of up to 11%. To ensure full target coverage, advanced dose calculation methods like Monte Carlo simulations may be necessary in proton therapy. Monte Carlo simulations may also be required to avoid biases resulting from systematic discrepancies in calculated dose distributions for clinical trials comparing proton therapy with conventional radiation therapy.

[1]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Field size dependence of the output factor in passively scattered proton therapy: influence of range, modulation, air gap, and machine settings. , 2009, Medical physics.

[2]  Søren M Bentzen,et al.  Meta-analysis of the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Kurt Baier,et al.  Dose, volume, and tumor control prediction in primary radiotherapy of non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  H. Paganetti Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Martin Soukup,et al.  Influence of dose engine accuracy on the optimum dose distribution in intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment plans , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  J. Deasy,et al.  Estimate of the impact of FDG-avidity on the dose required for head and neck radiotherapy local control , 2014, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Dosimetric accuracy of planning and delivering small proton therapy fields , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  R. Mohan,et al.  Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating proton stopping power ratios of biological tissues , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Models in radiotherapy: volume effects. , 1983, Medical physics.

[10]  H Paganetti,et al.  Experimental validation of the TOPAS Monte Carlo system for passive scattering proton therapy. , 2013, Medical physics.

[11]  H Paganetti,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations will change the way we treat patients with proton beams today. , 2014, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Clinical implementation of full Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton beam therapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  B. Gino Fallone,et al.  A TCP‐NTCP estimation module using DVHs and known radiobiological models and parameter sets , 2004, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[14]  V. Boonkitticharoen Biologically Equivalent Dose in Construction of Tumor Control Probability Curve for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated by Radiotherapy , 2011 .

[15]  S M Bentzen,et al.  Quantifying the position and steepness of radiation dose-response curves. , 1997, International journal of radiation biology.

[16]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.

[17]  H Paganetti,et al.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. , 2012, Medical physics.

[18]  M Goitein,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Geometrical splitting technique to improve the computational efficiency in Monte Carlo calculations for proton therapy. , 2012, Medical physics.

[20]  P Okunieff,et al.  Radiation dose-response of human tumors. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Anatoly Rosenfeld,et al.  Assessment of out-of-field absorbed dose and equivalent dose in proton fields. , 2009, Medical physics.

[22]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  B. Fisher,et al.  Determination and comparison of radiotherapy dose responses for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colorectal liver tumours. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  H Paganetti,et al.  Efficient voxel navigation for proton therapy dose calculation in TOPAS and Geant4 , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  An algorithm to assess the need for clinical Monte Carlo dose calculation for small proton therapy fields based on quantification of tissue heterogeneity. , 2013, Medical physics.

[26]  M. Goitein,et al.  Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. , 1991, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[27]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Quantification of proton dose calculation accuracy in the lung. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[28]  J Schuemann,et al.  Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Lei Dong,et al.  Dose-response for biochemical control among high-risk prostate cancer patients after external beam radiotherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.