Experimental benchmarking of RayStation proton dose calculation algorithms inside and outside the target region in heterogeneous phantom geometries.

PURPOSE The aim of the presented study was to complement existing literature on benchmarking proton dose by comparing dose calculations with experimental measurements in heterogeneous phantom. Points of interest inside and outside the target were considered to quantify the magnitude of calculation uncertainties in current and previous proton therapy practice that might especially have an impact on the dose in organs at risk (OARs). METHODS The RayStation treatment planning system (RaySearch Laboratories), offering two dose calculation algorithms for pencil beam scanning in proton therapy, i.e., Pencil Beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC), was utilized. Treatment plans for a target located behind the interface of the heterogeneous tissues were generated. Dose measurements within and behind the target were performed in a water phantom with embedded slabs of various tissue equivalent materials and 24 PinPoint ionization chambers (PTW). In total 12 test configurations encompassing two different target depths, oblique beam incidence of 30 degrees and range shifter, were considered. RESULTS PB and MC calculated doses agreed equally well with the measurements for all test geometries within the target, including the range shifter (mean dose differences ± 3%). Outside the target, the maximum dose difference of 9% (19%) was observed for MC (PB) for the oblique beam incidence and inserted range shifter. CONCLUSION The accuracy of MC dose algorithm was superior compared to the PB algorithm, especially outside the target volumes. MC based dose calculation should therefore be preferred in treatment scenarios with heterogeneities, especially to reduce clinically relevant uncertainties for OARs.

[1]  H. Palmans Perturbation factors for cylindrical ionization chambers in proton beams. Part I: corrections for gradients , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Ping Xia,et al.  Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA , 2018, Medical physics.

[3]  S. Lorentini,et al.  Evaluation of the water-equivalence of plastic materials in low- and high-energy clinical proton beams , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  M. Stock,et al.  Characterization of PTW-31015 PinPoint ionization chambers in photon and proton beams , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Jing Zeng,et al.  Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer. , 2018, Translational lung cancer research.

[6]  Tony Wong,et al.  Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  O Jäkel,et al.  Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: physical beam model and dose optimization. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  H. Palmans,et al.  Commissioning of pencil beam and Monte Carlo dose engines for non-isocentric treatments in scanned proton beam therapy , 2019, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  T. Wong,et al.  Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms. , 2018, Translational lung cancer research.

[10]  Timothy D. Solberg,et al.  A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system , 2017, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[11]  G. Royle,et al.  Impact of varying planning parameters on proton pencil beam scanning dose distributions in four commercial treatment planning systems , 2019, Medical physics.

[12]  Mingyao Zhu,et al.  A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy , 2017, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[13]  Marco Durante,et al.  Nuclear physics in particle therapy: a review , 2016, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[14]  Jan Seuntjens,et al.  Absorbed dose to water reference dosimetry using solid phantoms in the context of absorbed-dose protocols. , 2005, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[15]  H. Palmans,et al.  Water equivalence of some plastic-water phantom materials for clinical proton beam dosimetry. , 2012, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[16]  S. Lorentini,et al.  Accurate proton treatment planning for pencil beam crossing titanium fixation implants. , 2020, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[17]  Alexander Utz,et al.  The technological basis for adaptive ion beam therapy at MedAustron: Status and outlook. , 2017, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[18]  Martin Bues,et al.  Impact of range shifter material on proton pencil beam spot characteristics. , 2015, Medical physics.

[19]  Hugo Palmans,et al.  Implementation of dosimetry equipment and phantoms at the MedAustron light ion beam therapy facility , 2018, Medical physics.

[20]  A. Ahnesjö,et al.  Dose calculations for external photon beams in radiotherapy. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Robert J. Schneider,et al.  Multiple Coulomb scattering of 160 MeV protons , 1993 .

[22]  David S Followill,et al.  Pencil Beam Algorithms Are Unsuitable for Proton Dose Calculations in Lung. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  H Paganetti,et al.  Experimental assessment of proton dose calculation accuracy in inhomogeneous media. , 2017, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.