Validation and application of a fast Monte Carlo algorithm for assessing the clinical impact of approximations in analytical dose calculations for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

PURPOSE Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is generally superior to analytical dose calculation (ADC) used in commercial TPS to model the dose distribution especially for heterogeneous sites, such as lung and head/neck patients. The purpose of this study was to provide a validated, fast, and open-source MC code, MCsquare, to assess the impact of approximations in ADC on clinical pencil beam scanning (PBS) plans covering various sites. METHODS First, MCsquare was validated using tissue-mimicking IROC lung phantom measurements as well as benchmarked with the general purpose Monte Carlo TOPAS for patient dose calculation. Then a comparative analysis between MCsquare and ADC was performed for a total of 50 patients with 10 patients per site (including liver, pelvis, brain, head-and-neck, and lung). Differences among TOPAS, MCsquare, and ADC were evaluated using four dosimetric indices based on the dose-volume histogram (target Dmean, D95, homogeneity index, V95), a 3D gamma index analysis (using 3%/3 mm criteria), and estimations of tumor control probability (TCP). RESULTS Comparison between MCsquare and TOPAS showed less than 1.8% difference for all of the dosimetric indices/TCP values and resulted in a 3D gamma index passing rate for voxels within the target in excess of 99%. When comparing ADC and MCsquare, the variances of all the indices were found to increase as the degree of tissue heterogeneity increased. In the case of lung, the D95s for ADC were found to differ by as much as 6.5% from the corresponding MCsquare statistic. The median gamma index passing rate for voxels within the target volume decreased from 99.3% for liver to 75.8% for lung. Resulting TCP differences can be large for lung (≤10.5%) and head-and-neck (≤6.2%), while smaller for brain, pelvis and liver (≤1.5%). CONCLUSIONS Given the differences found in the analysis, accurate dose calculation algorithms such as Monte Carlo simulations are needed for proton therapy, especially for disease sites with high heterogeneity, such as head-and-neck and lung. The establishment of MCsquare can facilitate patient plan reviews at any institution and can potentially provide unbiased comparison in clinical trials given its accuracy, speed and open-source availability.

[1]  M. Toivonen.  Nuclear data for neutron and proton radiotherapy and for radiation protection (ICRU Report 63) , 2001 .

[2]  Andrzej Niemierko,et al.  A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. , 2007, 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.

[3]  T. Sakae,et al.  Experimental evaluation of validity of simplified Monte Carlo method in proton dose calculations. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  GPU-based fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for proton therapy , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  T. Merchant,et al.  A simplified analytical random walk model for proton dose calculation , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[7]  B. Rossi,et al.  Cosmic-Ray Theory , 1941 .

[8]  L Grevillot,et al.  A Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning model for proton treatment plan simulation using GATE/GEANT4 , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  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.

[10]  R. Mohan,et al.  Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system. , 2013, Medical physics.

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

[12]  Development and clinical implementation of a universal bolus to maintain spot size during delivery of base of skull pencil beam scanning proton therapy. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Luc Beaulieu,et al.  Correction of CT artifacts and its influence on Monte Carlo dose calculations. , 2007, Medical physics.

[14]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Monte Carlo investigation of the low-dose envelope from scanned proton pencil beams , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Timothy D. Solberg,et al.  Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy , 2018, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

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

[17]  Dragan Mirkovic,et al.  A GPU implementation of a track-repeating algorithm for proton radiotherapy dose calculations , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[19]  H Paganetti,et al.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility. , 2004, Medical physics.

[20]  H. Tseung,et al.  A fast GPU-based Monte Carlo simulation of proton transport with detailed modeling of nonelastic interactions. , 2014, Medical physics.

[21]  Chris Beltran,et al.  A GPU-accelerated and Monte Carlo-based intensity modulated proton therapy optimization system. , 2014, Medical physics.

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

[23]  C Lartizien,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Alfred R. Smith,et al.  Benchmarking analytical calculations of proton doses in heterogeneous matter. , 2005, Medical physics.

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

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

[27]  A. Carabe,et al.  A critical study of different Monte Carlo scoring methods of dose average linear-energy-transfer maps calculated in voxelized geometries irradiated with clinical proton beams , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  Kevin Souris,et al.  Performance of a hybrid Monte Carlo‐Pencil Beam dose algorithm for proton therapy inverse planning , 2018, Medical physics.

[29]  J. Sempau,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of electron beams from an accelerator head using PENELOPE , 2001, Physics in Medicine and Biology.

[30]  M. Fippel,et al.  A Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for proton therapy. , 2004, Medical physics.

[31]  A. Lomax,et al.  Characterizing a proton beam scanning system for Monte Carlo dose calculation in patients , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  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.

[33]  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.

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

[35]  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.

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

[37]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Density heterogeneities and the influence of multiple Coulomb and nuclear scatterings on the Bragg peak distal edge of proton therapy beams , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[38]  Liyong Lin,et al.  Experimentally validated pencil beam scanning source model in TOPAS , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[39]  Baden,et al.  Foundation of an analytical proton beamlet model for inclusion in a general proton dose calculation system , 2010, 1009.0832.

[40]  F. Cerutti,et al.  The FLUKA code: Description and benchmarking , 2007 .

[41]  Mingli Chen,et al.  Efficient gamma index calculation using fast Euclidean distance transform. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

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

[44]  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.

[45]  R. Mohan,et al.  Adjustment of the lateral and longitudinal size of scanned proton beam spots using a pre-absorber to optimize penumbrae and delivery efficiency , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  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.

[47]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[48]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Establishing the feasibility of the dosimetric compliance criteria of RTOG 1308: phase III randomized trial comparing overall survival after photon versus proton radiochemotherapy for inoperable stage II-IIIB NSCLC , 2016, Radiation Oncology.

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

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

[51]  Kevin Souris,et al.  Fast multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation for proton therapy using multi- and many-core CPU architectures. , 2016, Medical physics.

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

[53]  C. Ma,et al.  A particle track-repeating algorithm for proton beam dose calculation , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[54]  M. Fippel.  Fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for photon beams based on the VMC electron algorithm. , 1999, Medical physics.