Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy

To evaluate the effect of approximations in clinical analytical calculations performed by a treatment planning system (TPS) on dosimetric indices in intensity modulated proton therapy. TPS calculated dose distributions were compared with dose distributions as estimated by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, calculated with the fast dose calculator (FDC) a system previously benchmarked to full MC. This study analyzed a total of 525 patients for four treatment sites (brain, head-and-neck, thorax and prostate). Dosimetric indices (D02, D05, D20, D50, D95, D98, EUD and Mean Dose) and a gamma-index analysis were utilized to evaluate the differences. The gamma-index passing rates for a 3%/3 mm criterion for voxels with a dose larger than 10% of the maximum dose had a median larger than 98% for all sites. The median difference for all dosimetric indices for target volumes was less than 2% for all cases. However, differences for target volumes as large as 10% were found for 2% of the thoracic patients. For organs at risk (OARs), the median absolute dose difference was smaller than 2 Gy for all indices and cohorts. However, absolute dose differences as large as 10 Gy were found for some small volume organs in brain and head-and-neck patients. This analysis concludes that for a fraction of the patients studied, TPS may overestimate the dose in the target by as much as 10%, while for some OARs the dose could be underestimated by as much as 10 Gy. Monte Carlo dose calculations may be needed to ensure more accurate dose computations to improve target coverage and sparing of OARs in proton therapy.

[1]  Matthias Fippel,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy derived from Monte Carlo simulations , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  D Robertson,et al.  Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization: the impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality. , 2010, Medical physics.

[3]  Wayne D Newhauser,et al.  A Track-Repeating Algorithm for Fast Monte Carlo Dose Calculations of Proton Radiotherapy , 2009, Nuclear technology.

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

[5]  E. Pedroni,et al.  A technique for calculating range spectra of charged particle beams distal to thick inhomogeneities. , 1998, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[6]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy. , 2015, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  J. Deasy,et al.  Geometric interpretation of the gamma dose distribution comparison technique: interpolation-free calculation. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  R. Mohan,et al.  Assessment of the accuracy of an MCNPX-based Monte Carlo simulation model for predicting three-dimensional absorbed dose distributions , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  K. Coombes,et al.  Monte Carlo calculations and measurements of absorbed dose per monitor unit for the treatment of uveal melanoma with proton therapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[11]  J. S. Hendricks,et al.  MCNPX version 2.5.c , 2003 .

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

[13]  U Isacsson,et al.  Implementation of pencil kernel and depth penetration algorithms for treatment planning of proton beams. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  R. Mohan,et al.  Validation of a track repeating algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy: clinical cases study , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  E. Pedroni,et al.  The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  E. Pedroni,et al.  Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  A. Dell'Acqua,et al.  Geant4 - A simulation toolkit , 2003 .

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

[19]  R. Mohan,et al.  Validation of a track-repeating algorithm versus measurements in water for proton scanning beams , 2016 .

[20]  L. Beaulieu,et al.  Validation of GEANT4, an object-oriented Monte Carlo toolkit, for simulations in medical physics. , 2004, Medical physics.

[21]  U. Oelfke,et al.  Two-dimensional pencil beam scaling: an improved proton dose algorithm for heterogeneous media. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  J O Deasy,et al.  A proton dose calculation algorithm for conformal therapy simulations based on Molière's theory of lateral deflections. , 1998, Medical physics.