Evaluation of the ray-casting analytical algorithm for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

For pencil beam scanned (PBS) proton therapy, analytical dose calculation engines are still typically used for the optimisation process, and often for the final evaluation of the plan. Recently however, the suitability of analytical calculations for planning PBS treatments has been questioned. Conceptually, the two main approaches for these analytical dose calculations are the ray-casting (RC) and the pencil-beam (PB) method. In this study, we compare dose distributions and dosimetric indices, calculated on both the clinical dose calculation grid and as a function of dose grid resolution, to Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. The analysis is done using a comprehensive set of clinical plans which represent a wide choice of treatment sites. When analysing dose difference histograms for relative treatment plans, pencil beam calculations with double grid resolution perform best, with on average 97.7%/91.9% (RC), 97.9%/92.7% (RC, double grid resolution), 97.6%/91.0% (PB) and 98.6%/94.0% (PB, double grid resolution) of voxels agreeing within  ±5%/±  3% between the analytical and the MC calculations. Even though these point-to-point dose comparison shows differences between analytical and MC calculations, for all algorithms, clinically relevant dosimetric indices agree within  ±4% for the PTV and within  ±5% for critical organs. While the clinical agreement depends on the treatment site, there is no substantial difference of indices between the different algorithms. The pencil-beam approach however comes at a higher computational cost than the ray-casting calculation. In conclusion, we would recommend using the ray-casting algorithm for fast dose optimization and subsequently combine it with one MC calculation to scale the absolute dose and assure the quality of the treatment plan.

[1]  A J Lomax,et al.  Independent dose calculations for commissioning, quality assurance and dose reconstruction of PBS proton therapy , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Damien Charles Weber,et al.  A statistical comparison of motion mitigation performances and robustness of various pencil beam scanned proton systems for liver tumour treatments. , 2018, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  A. Lomax,et al.  Factors influencing the performance of patient specific quality assurance for pencil beam scanning IMPT fields. , 2016, Medical physics.

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

[5]  A J Lomax,et al.  Experimental verification of IMPT treatment plans in an anthropomorphic phantom in the presence of delivery uncertainties , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[7]  S van de Water,et al.  Improved efficiency of multi-criteria IMPT treatment planning using iterative resampling of randomly placed pencil beams , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[9]  D C Weber,et al.  Validating a Monte Carlo approach to absolute dose quality assurance for proton pencil beam scanning , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[11]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Degradation of proton depth dose distributions attributable to microstructures in lung-equivalent material. , 2015, Medical physics.

[12]  H. Paganetti,et al.  Physics Settings for Using the Geant4 Toolkit in Proton Therapy , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[13]  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.

[14]  E Pedroni,et al.  Monte Carlo dose calculations for spot scanned proton therapy , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  S Lorentini,et al.  Characterization and validation of a Monte Carlo code for independent dose calculation in proton therapy treatments with pencil beam scanning , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Francesco Tommasino,et al.  Impact of dose engine algorithm in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for breast cancer. , 2018, 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]  David Craft,et al.  Exploration of tradeoffs in intensity-modulated radiotherapy , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Eros Pedroni,et al.  Pencil beam characteristics of the next-generation proton scanning gantry of PSI: design issues and initial commissioning results , 2011 .

[19]  Richard Ansorge,et al.  Sub-second pencil beam dose calculation on GPU for adaptive proton therapy , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Alessandra Bolsi,et al.  Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: initial experiences. , 2004, Medical physics.

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

[22]  Markus Alber,et al.  Adaptation is mandatory for intensity modulated proton therapy of advanced lung cancer to ensure target coverage. , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[23]  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.

[24]  David Oxley,et al.  Log file based Monte Carlo calculations for proton pencil beam scanning therapy , 2019, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[26]  Francesco Fracchiolla,et al.  Improvements in pencil beam scanning proton therapy dose calculation accuracy in brain tumor cases with a commercial Monte Carlo algorithm , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Francesca Albertini,et al.  Anatomical robust optimization to account for nasal cavity filling variation during intensity-modulated proton therapy: a comparison with conventional and adaptive planning strategies , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  E Pedroni,et al.  Experimental characterization and physical modelling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[31]  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.

[32]  Francesca Albertini,et al.  Long term outcomes of patients with skull-base low-grade chondrosarcoma and chordoma patients treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. , 2016, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.